feminism as wholly focused on gender and championing women no matter what the context or complexities

It does not mean they are racists, or homophobes, or anything else.

And no, Ferraro didn't misspeak, and wasn't quoted out of context. She was worse when she had a chance to respond later, and anyway she has a history of this crap going back 20 years.

I completely agree with Jessica's (and your) argument about the generational gap, and I definitely have experienced the importance of an intersectional approach. I have to say though, at the risk of getting slaughtered on this message board, that I'm starting to get a little tired at the constant stream of criticism aimed at the (yes, mostly white) feminists of the past. They made some big mistakes, and I disagree with them on a lot of issues. But because of them, my life as a woman is very different from what it would have been, and I am grateful for that. Do I agree with Ferraro's stance on the election? No. Do I understand it? Yes. It's important to point out the flaws in their approaches, and fix them for today's feminists, but can't we do that without constantly berating them? We can't end the polarization that's happening between the "waves" if we're always getting outraged at how horrible we think the last generation of feminists is.

Courtney, I think you're right. (Have you read "Not my Mother's Sister"?) Look, I lean more towards Hilary than Barack, but I think Ferraro's comments were stunningly obtuse -- and, on their face, racist. It bears repeating that many older women who do take the line that "sex trumps race" as an oppressive force do so less out of bigotry but out of real experience. (Shirley Chisholm, both black and female, always regarded the latter as the greater handicap.)

Young feminists are embracing intersectionality, and rejecting the "oppression olympics" in which racial bigotry and sexism compete for the gold medal. But the ability to embrace that more holistic view of the struggle,and to be less wed to feminist orthodoxy, is a product of the very hard work done by an older generation of second-wavers. Honoring those who came before us, while rebuking their prejudices, is the needle we need to thread here.

I'm getting a little sick of hearing that only older feminists think we should push for women in office. I am a 22 year old feminist and I think that, given the fact that Clinton and Obama are great candidates, I would much rather have her in office because she is a woman.

Whether you agree with that or not isn't the issue, the issue is that there are a lot of women my age who support Hillary and feel the same. I feel lost in the shuffle on both sides of the camp.

"I'm starting to get a little tired at the constant stream of criticism aimed at the (yes, mostly white) feminists of the past. They made some big mistakes"

I was there. I don't think we made that many "big mistakes" at least not on the action side. Where mistakes were made was on the academic side, the gender studies and gender feminism.

What harmed feminism more than any mistakes was the constant drum beat of misogyny from the male corporate media and the female quislings(media whores) who framed us.

Susan Faludi offers a good take on some of the media actions in "Backlash".

There was also the giving of greater weight to right wing voices like John Birch Society shill Phyllis Schafley than to say Gloria Steinem.

Then you had the male media telling us who the acceptable feminist were. Funny thing they all tended to be iconoclasts who were the feminists men could love like Germaine Greer.

The right rolled misogyny in with homophobia and the peddling of sexism to create the idea that "Real women are not feminists".

It is the same form of attack that was used on liberals and created the reagan era neo-con men.

Although I think that what Ferraro said was embarassing and I agree that dialog (even if it's contentious) about these kinds of things would be helpful, I do not think that these problems are generational. In fact, defining these problems as generational smacks of ageism. Middle-age and older feminists of color don't even fit into this paradigm.
I am with you in that I question a lot of what the old guard white feminist spokespersons are doing and saying these days. Still, it seems like you are inferring that all old feminists are one way and all young feminists are another.

It was probably unwise to say it, but what Geraldine Ferraro said wasn't wrong.

I'm a young black femininist, and there's never been a doubt in my mind that we'd have a black male as president before we'd have a white female as president. So, yes, from that standpoint, Barack Obama is lucky.

Barack Obama is smart, capable and inspiring but his race has played a role in the softballs he's been thrown by the media. And Hillary Clinton's gender has played a role in the vitriol leveled against her by the media.

I say "A" role, because there are, of course, other factors at work.

Racists will usually at least hide their racism or racial bias. But you can still wear sexism and misogyny out in the open.

Or, if you think nothing in politics is unplanned, you could see this as a way to have surrogates make your Southern Strategy II argument to older, white Southern voters and rural areas of PA and IN. Using her as an exemplar of some generational academic trend ignores the very real fact that there's a win at all costs primary going on right now.

I agree that we need to have respect and appreciation for the accomplishments of our feminist predecessors.

I also think that we should be careful not to break our arms patting ourselves on the back when we praise ourselves for our desire to 'speak, breathe, and live' intersectionality. Perhaps I'm alone on this, but my perspective is that a lack of understanding of intersectionality remains a serious problem in feminism, as it is in most related contexts.

Certainly, feminism as a collective is making progress toward understanding the lessons of intersectionality, but this journey is a long way from over.

Courtney and everyone else on this thread: We don't need to create a division between older and younger feminists. You're entirely right in your condemnation of GF, but if we're really going to make intersectional feminism work, we can't keep blaming stupid comments on age. How's that any different from GF's polarizing remarks? This so-called generational divide seems pretty artificial to me and smacks of prejudice. If I'm wrong, and there is a real (as opposed to media-enhanced) generational divide, let's stop treating it as an explanation for problems and start working on bridging it.

You do everyone a disservice by softening the edges of Ferraro's racist comments. You can be a single-issue fanatic about feminism without being a racist. I know many women who have a single-issue focus on being pro-choice, but that only means your abortion rights trumps all else in their politics.

But reproductive choice is not a White women's issue. It's an all women's issue, and it's important to recognize the way social economic status, race, and other factors play in it. So White feminist women who are passionate about one issue but ignore race and that particular issue are exerting their White privilege, which is racist.

Courtney and everyone else on this thread: We don't need to create a division between older and younger feminists. You're entirely right in your condemnation of GF, but if we're really going to make intersectional feminism work, we can't keep blaming stupid comments on age. How's that any different from GF's polarizing remarks? This so-called generational divide seems pretty artificial to me and smacks of prejudice. If I'm wrong, and there is a real (as opposed to media-enhanced) generational divide, let's stop treating it as an explanation for problems and start working on bridging it.

I don't think the generational divide is artificial at all. I think Ferraro's comments prove that. Courtney and others are not blaming her comments on age per se. Ferraro is a product of her time, but times have changed. She still hasn't evolved from the racism that was heavy in the first two waves of the feminist movement. Today's young feminists ("young" means either age or experience in the movement) aren't going to go backwards to accommodate Ferraro or Robin Morgan or any of the other second wave White feminist women that have made racist remarks about the election. They are racist, and we shouldn't have to defend them because of the good work they did before us. They made a lot of mistakes, and we're trying to fix them.

First, let me say thank you for saying, "Some older women are stuck in a second-wave..." You are the only one to qualify this disturbing fact with the qualifier of the word, "some."

I am in the most peculiar of circumstances of being 59 and having one foot in each of the self-imposed label of waves. My grey hair is in the 2nd wave, my clothes are, rightly so, in the 2nd wave but my conscience is in the 3rd wave.

My hope has been to be a liaison, explaining one to the other and this election has really ripped through my soul. There is a piece coming out in the Nation, Morning in America, (trying to not hammer the reporter for talking about muffins and good china - I can't translate that to men meeting in the AM), I highlighted one sentence late last night, "...media descriptions of white women as the sole inheritors of the feminist movement and black men as the sole beneficiaries of the civil rights movement." I had to pause and really survey the context of my political activism.

I don't want to choose one movement over another - the goal has always been to eliminate oppression in all forms. Is this Sophie's choice? - I hate that. A mother who has twins, carried for 9 months, and gave birth to her children ~ choosing one or the other is one of the few things that can destroy a soul. I think it explains why this election is eating away at my, and so many others, very fabric.

And then there is the anger that what began as so much good news has turned into dropping one of my banners, my lifelong battles for liberation. I still want what I want – but how that wanting became harming another, whom I am drawn to protect, is unexpected, unimaginable, and, at the moment, unsolvable.

As a mixed race, 26-year old woman, I actually completely agree with amr39. It was a politically unwise thing to say, but Geraldine is accurate in her summing up - especially in her follow-on comments where she says 'racism works both ways'. All of us in this country are WAY too particular about not being called out as 'racists' and so we sweep so much under the carpet.

If Obama was a white guy, and exactly the same in all other respects - young, a good speaker, etc - he'd not be half as popular. Whether that is fair or not, historical-sin-redemption or collective-guilt-washing or not, is a different dialogue.
Why is calling that out 'racist'?

And I LOVE how she knocked back David Axelrod's puffy-faced criticism saying "He shouldn't really antagonize people like me. If Obama is nominated, (Axelrod) is going to come to me and ask me to raise money for Barack Obama, and I will do it for him, too, if he stops doing this kind of horrendous attack."

Yo Girl!! for her standing up to the 'monstrous' bullies in Obama's campaign!!

If Obama was a white guy, and exactly the same in all other respects - young, a good speaker, etc - he'd not be half as popular.

You are absolutely right! I mean, it's not like John F. Kennedy was ever president. I would totally disagree with you and tell you that someone exactly like that was elected president 47 years ago if John F. Kennedy was ever elected president. But John F. Kennedy was never president. It's a good thing John F. Kennedy was never the president, or else you'd look real dumb right now!

From my perspective, what Geraldine Ferraro said was racist and unwise. Barack Obama is the third black senator since Reconstruction and is the only black man to ever run for president - I don't think that he got into this position by being black any more than Hillary Clinton has gotten into hers by being a woman.

But, I wouldn't say that it's a hallmark of "older feminists" - to be a feminist is to believe in equal rights for women and in solving some of the major problems that prevent that, it has nothing to do with race. Feminists can be men, women, tall, short, educated, uneducated, and, yes, racists.

The bottom line is that Ferraro should not have said what she said, in part because it fuels the kind of divisive, hateful speech that she herself has faced for being a woman in politics, and in part because it stands in the way of constructive political discourse both on the part of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

I have just (half assedly) blogged about "intersectionality", but I'm with PaperCup. Feminism has a long way to go.

norbizness said: Or, if you think nothing in politics is unplanned, you could see this as a way to have surrogates make your Southern Strategy II argument to older, white Southern voters and rural areas of PA and IN. Using her as an exemplar of some generational academic trend ignores the very real fact that there's a win at all costs primary going on right now.
**********************

You are totally on the money with this one. This is no mistake from the Clinton campaign. They are pandering. I could buy that Ferraro was alone on this statement if she had given a quick, political apology after the fact, which is what Clinton did by distancing herself from the comment. But Ferraro didn't do that. She's still steamrolling ahead with her first claim. And I don't hear Clinton saying that she should step aside as a fundraiser and spokesperson for the campaign.

Frankly, I'm sure Hillary Clinton agrees with Ferraro. Clinton thinks she should be coronated president and this Obama thing has been such a glitch for her!

As for older feminists supporting Clinton because she's a woman, unfortunately, a close female and young friend picked her simply because she's a woman. Gross. I picked Obama not because I have the mania but because I find Clinton to be smart but not just a little vile.

Anyways, yeah, Ferraro's statement is racist. But that doesn't surprise me. I honestly don't know any completely nonracist people. Do you?

Although I think that what Ferraro said was embarassing and I agree that dialog (even if it's contentious) about these kinds of things would be helpful, I do not think that these problems are generational.

Here! Here! And I guess I read your piece in the WaPo incorrectly, Courtney since i really thought you put forth a message to end the generational finger pointing and for all of us to get on with the business of this thing called a feminist revolution.

As a Gen Xer in her 30s who supports Clinton and also loves Obama, I found Ferraro's comments offensive. It smacked of what some POC get..."You only got that scholarship/job/acceptance/honor/scrap of bread because you're Latina!"

FEM: And the mere thought of some governor of a backwater state ascending to the Presidency with no national experience whatsoever while in his mid-40s... for TWO TERMS?!? Totally preposterous!

FEMily: Everyone likes the JFK analogy (I do, too, in terms of their youth and power to inspire), but Obama is not JFK in terms of experience.

JFK was a commander in the military, served in the House for 6 years and the Senate for 8 more before becoming president. John F. Kennedy was young but had much more national experience than Barack Obama has.

But amr, what if Barack's lack of experience is exactly what's helping him? He's running as a candidate not caught up in the political system that many people feel has left them behind. Many of his supporters, black or white, are young people and people who are inspired by him personally. He has a combination of powerful charisma and an outsider mentality that allows him to run on a platform of "change" precisely because he isn't experienced.

The question is simple: Do voters have to care about a candidate's experience? I prefer experienced candidates, but to assume that I speak for everyone would be incorrect. Some people want precisely the opposite, and in a big way, which is one reason why Obama is winning.

As for Geraldine Ferraro's comment, it's absolutely and totally racist. Let me ask you something: If this was your boss talking about some black guy in your company who was smart, charismatic, and popular, how would you respond? Ferraro is basically saying Obama is where he is because he's black, cutting down the fact that he has created a campaign that appeals to a broad spectrum of people, the fact that he has inspired young voters (and actually gotten them to follow this up at the voting booth), and the fact that he is incredibly popular for his oratory.

By saying that he's winning "because he's black" is a dismissive, racist statement that denies that a black man can achieve something on his own merit, a true hallmark of old-school racism. That Hillary has yet to fire her is a tragedy, because at least Barack managed to fire the woman who made the "monster" comment. Advantage: Obama.

The fact that some people here have been agreeing with Ferraro's comment is bewildering to me.

Consider the incredible obstacles that confront a black person attempting to achieve political power, especially when the person is looking to move beyond advocating for African-American issues. How many black Senators have we had? Representatives? Governors? Supreme Court Justices? Presidents?

Given the obvious and tremendous hurdles faced by African-Americans in ascending to political power, the argument that Obama has benefited politically from his race strikes me as so silly to be nonsensical.

If an Obama surrogate were to claim that Clinton has benefited from her race, a similar response would hold true.

Yes, there is more public vitriolic hatred directed toward Clinton because of her gender than is directed toward Obama because of his race. This fact alone in no way proves that Obama's race has been a benefit to his political career.

Racists will usually at least hide their racism or racial bias. But you can still wear sexism and misogyny out in the open.

Um, what the fuck do you call these comments, and her flip defense of "you're discriminating against me because I'm white"? (yeah, that's almost verbatim.) If you can't wear your racism out in the open, Ferraro sure as hell hasn't gotten the message. Neither have a LOT of Clinton supporters.

So, there's the fact that this just isn't true. There's also the fact that even if it were true, it proves nothing except that racism has become such a part of everyday life and our institutions that there's no need to shout offensive things from the rooftops, because that would undermine the much larger battle that racism has already won. Oppression working differently doesn't mean that the oppression isn't as severe. And again, the assessment is wrong from the get go.

I don't think that this has a lot to do with feminism, though I do think that it painfully illuminates some of the problems that many third wave feminists have with a lot of second wave feminists. I think that this is racism, plain and simple. That's it. I don't see how generational differences in feminism ties in at all, unless we think that the only feminists who can be racist are ones from the second wave. As great as it would be if this were true -- it would mean that young feminists and therefore the future of feminism is past all that bullshit -- the suggestion is pretty laughable.

Ferraro's claim is such horseshit.

If Obama were white, and still had his incredible oratory skills and charisma, you can bet he would still be in this position. In fact, he may very well be in a better position, having already swept through the primaries and having already blown Clinton out of the water.

I'm so sick of these claims that Obama ain't worth nothin'. He is the best orator in a generation. That practically guarantees political success.

DaveNJ17: My last comment was specifically addressing FEMily's JFK comparison. And I don't disagree with what you've written.

But there's a difference in saying 1.) "he got where he is because he's black"--that's dismissive of Obama's talents and accomplishments and 2.) "his race has had a positive effect in his electoral success."

Furthermore,I heard Ferraro's comments not as singling out Obama for being black, but, rather, discussing Obama as a black candidate in the context of Clinton as a female candidate. Both are political/leadership minorities who've experienced bias, but does one trait (in and of itself) have an edge over the other?

Acknowledging that race is a factor isn't inherently racist--it's observant. And acknowledging that racism is a taboo in a way that sexism isn't is just being painfully honest.

Ferraro's words were clumsy and harsh, but I don't disagree with the sentiment behind them.

I'm a black woman and a Clinton supporter. I think what Ferraro said was way off-base and offensive, and it's very clear to me that Clinton should distance herself from these comments as soon as possible. I will be very disappointed if she doesn't. Playing the white victim of black racism should not fly, ever, in a party that claims to be anti-racist.

As for the content of her original comment, she's dead wrong. I have a lot of trouble believing Obama would be doing worse if he were a white man. His race has kept a lot of Dems from voting from him, just as Clinton's gender has kept a lot of people from voting for her (among other things, I'm not saying that race or gender are the only factors in this primary season). At the same time I have trouble believing that a female candidate of any race who had spent as little time in high office as Obama would be doing as well as he is . . . but that's besides the point. Ferraro's comments are inexcusable.

"I mean, it's not like John F. Kennedy was ever president. I would totally disagree with you and tell you that someone exactly like that was elected president 47 years ago if John F. Kennedy was ever elected president."

With all due respect to the fine Senator Obama ... the comparison to Kennedy only works so far. Does no one study history these days?

John Kennedy was a decorated WWII veteran, a US Congressman for 6 years, and a US Senator for 8 years before running for president in 1960.

And before someone decides to throw him in ... Bill Clinton was the Attorney General of Arkansas for 2 years and Governor of the state for 11 years prior to becoming president.

Obama's 3 years in the US Senate and 6 years in the Illinois House are not the same sort of experience ... frankly neither is HRC's 2 terms as Senator for that matter. The last Dem candidate with comparable pre-White House experience was Jimmy Carter.

I am also not sure why candidates are so eager to be compared to Jack Kennedy. You have to take the good with the bad when it comes to JFK. He played it safe on voting rights and McCarthy when he was in the Senate, his inexperience probably contributed to the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and he was a serial philander.

I am appalled by Ms. Ferraro, for whom I voted in 1984 (I was one of about 10 Americans who did so). It is unfortunate that, in this instance, she is being identified as a feminist because people will get the idea that she's reduced feminism to a special interest lobby that simply wants to advance the interests of WOMEN, other issues of equality be damned.

Yes, being black has been a huge advantage to Obama. Right. And I have three balls. The fact is, Ms. Ferraro, Clinton would not be where she is today if she weren't a woman. That should not be a controversial statement to anyone with a brain because relatively few people would have ever heard of Mrs. Clinton if she were not married to President Bill Clinton. No shame, George W. had the right father, as did JFK. Virtually all of the protestant white men who've been president have had benefactors who put them in the right place at the right time.

Let's cut the divisiveness and stop the bellyaching about "I'm more oppressed than you." Hell, Geraldine, at least a woman has been on a national ticket (and you lost in THE biggest landslide ever); no black has come close. But being black has helped him?

I think Clinton would be better for America than Obama, but Clinton ought to do the right thing and dump Ferraro, if only for being so damn divisive.

"Barack Obama is the third black senator since Reconstruction and is the only black man to ever run for president."

No, sorry that isn't true.

Jesse Jackson was a contender in the 1984 and 1988 Democratic primaries. Al Sharpton ran in the Democratic primaries in 2000. Alan Keyes ran in the 1996 and 2000 Republican primaries.

But the first African-American candidate was the indomitable Shirley Chisholm who was the first African American woman elected to Congress. She was one of the Democratic candidates in 1972.

"I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign," Ferraro wrote in a letter to Clinton. "The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you. I won't let that happen."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/12/ferraro.comments/index.html

"I think Clinton would be better for America than Obama, but Clinton ought to do the right thing and dump Ferraro, if only for being so damn divisive."

Agreed ... I really don't think Ferraro is a racist. But what she said certainly sounds that way and once she got defensive, it just made things worse.

Which is a point not lost on Ferraro apparently since she stepped down today from the Clinton campaign.

BTW, Noah... Mondale was well behind in the national polls before he asked Ferraro to be his running mate. You cannot blame his loss on her.

"Does no one study history these days?"

Playing it safe is what achieved voting rights in the first place. Congress is and always has been a bureaucratic mess. Members of congress who do not play it safe on such controversial issues might make a public point, but they accomplish next to nothing. Few if any historians would argue. This is why out of context excerpts of either Obama or Clinton’s congressional voting records are a bit silly.

History also shows us that experience amounts to hill of beans when presidencies are concerned. Some this nation's worst had the most experience and some of its best had the least. The emphasis put on experience in this election is pure campaigning.

I'm for a woman in the white house but regarding Geraldine's comment, I felt a punch to the gut. the same low blow I feel everytime race pops up in places I feel it doesnt belong. Race comments hurt just the same as gender. I feel Obama's resume speaks for itself--he deserves to be exactly where he worked hard to be. (again, I'm for Hillary but it stung the way it would if someone threw in a patronizing gender comment) She could have come better than that.

I agree with Geraldine Ferraro in part. Yes, Obama owes a great deal of success to his race. I think that he's an amazing speaker, has great ideas, and is very charismatic; however, the young people are out in masses for Obama. And the reason they are is because he represents change. And part of that change is in his race. To ignore the fact that race is involved in his candicacy, is ignoring truth. I do disagree with Geraldine Ferraro in saying that if he were a woman he wouldn't be in his position, Clinton also owes some success to simply being a woman. It's not racist to point out that his race is a factor, but I can see that her other comments are offensive, just not that one.

i wonder how the experience Hillary gained from her 7 year stint on the Wal-Mart board of directors has prepared her for the presidency and the difficulties managing the racist comments of employees when, for whatever reason, you can’t simply FIRE them.

i wonder how the experience Hillary gained from her 7 year stint on the Wal-Mart board of directors has prepared her for the presidency and the difficulties managing the racist comments of employees when, for whatever reason, you can’t simply FIRE them.

i wonder how the experience Hillary gained from her 7 year stint on the Wal-Mart board of directors has prepared her for the presidency and the difficulties managing the racist comments of employees when, for whatever reason, you can’t simply FIRE them.

Everyone likes the JFK analogy (I do, too, in terms of their youth and power to inspire), but Obama is not JFK in terms of experience. JFK was a commander in the military, served in the House for 6 years and the Senate for 8 more before becoming president. John F. Kennedy was young but had much more national experience than Barack Obama has.

I wasn't alive in the '60s, but the way people talk about JFK now, I don't think people liked him for his experience.

FEMily, it's obvious you think Obama's some reincarnation of JFK. Forgive me if I think otherwise. 47 years ago a black man like JFK would not have stood a chance, now if there were two candidates exactly like each other, the black candidate/woman/minority candidate stands a far better chance than a plain vanilla candidate.

You see it everyday - and not just in politics, but even in business, in academics, etc. Many minorities/women benefit if they enter a competitive field dominated by men, and yes, that is irritating (because people assume you're in a good place BECAUSE you're a woman, and the fact is that you're as good as the next person and ALSO a woman). There are also some disadvantages, like not having a peer group that you can share experiences with, not having mentoring, no role models, sticking out in every situation, etc.

To deny this basic reality is ridiculous. And stating this reality is not equal to making a value judgement. What Ferraro is saying is a statement of fact - as there are disadvantages to being black, there are definitely some gigantic advantages to being 'different', and Obama's candidacy is totally benefiting from the fact that he's black!

How, again, is stating that racist?????
And seriously, how do you explain 91% of African-Americans voting for Obama if not by the fact of his race? No other demographic breaks as skewed-ly as this for ANY candidate!

Do you have any idea how tired many of us are of identity politics? Of the "Heirarchy of Oppression"?

Let me get this out of the way, first: I'm a Native American. I *can* play the "race card". But the only time I do is to trump some idiot who is accusing me of "White Privilege". So I'm playing it pre-emptively here (and I feel slightly dirty for doing it). As for "Male Privilege", so be it and who cares?

This mess is the inevitable product of victimization as attack, as a deliberate strategic choice by the Hillary campaign and Hillary herself. Even Ferraro's resignation reprises the theme, she's acting the martyr because "The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you. I won't let that happen."

Bullshit. And so is Hillary's "Both sides have engaged in personal attacks." She's not repudiating Ferraro, she's wringing her hands at how terrible it is that Obama's campaign forced one of her supporters to snap. Pretending that Samantha Powers calling her a monster in what she tought was an off-the-record talk with a foreign newspaper (and immediately falling on her sword and shutting up) is equal to Ferrarro blowing racist dogwhistles on every TV show that would have her.

The whole damned thing is a cold-blooded poltical maneuver to let Hillary be victim by proxy, without looking weak. And too many of you are falling for it.

Accept this: There will not be a female president elected in 2008. Hillary has no path to the nomination that does not also leads to a divided party and a McCain victory. Quit dreaming about the "superdelegates coming to their senses" and seeing that Hillary deserves the nomination no matter what the delegate counts are, and give up on her winning the delegate count through anything but machinations that get the "chinese ballot" MI delegates admitted. Any chance of it went out the window when she failed to make a delegate gain this last week (she is actually further behind, with fewer delegates to contest, needing higher margins, than she was a week ago).

She knows this, and the way she's campaigning makes it obvious that she's out to poison the well for Obama and ensure a McCain victory. Even she has no hope of victory anymore, this is "scorched earth" politics, there is no way the African American vote forgives her for this and votes for her in November, and many of the independants and crossovers that were voting for Obama will flip to McCain or stay home.

Think about that for a minute, what a McCain presidency means. Right off the bat, kiss Roe v. Wade goodbye, McCain would appoint at least one, and probably two, SC justices.

Yes, Hillary is willing to let abortion rights go the way of the dodo in order to ensure she can run again in 2012, now that there is no chance at all that she will win this year. And yet many of you sit here making excuses for her.

Many minorities/women benefit if they enter a competitive field dominated by men, and yes, that is irritating (because people assume you're in a good place BECAUSE you're a woman,

Didn't you just repeat yourself there? I'm not sure what planet you're on that you think women and POC benefit when they enter a field dominated by white men. That doesn't happen here on earth, but hey, maybe you're one of those people that think affirmative action is unfair to poor, poor, white men. It certainly sounds like it.

Your little diatribe was just as racist as Ferraro's.

Dave Rickey, I don't know what you're talking about when you talk about using your race card. What on earth did your being Native American have to do with the rest of your post? And to this:

As for "Male Privilege", so be it and who cares?

A lot of people here. Male Privilege, "so be it?" Um, no. Not, so be it.

@kissmypineapple

Because I'm sick to death of "identity politics", and see the current mess as a prime example of why. Some the commenters are seriously arguing about who is righteous based on which is more of a victim.

The game may be rigged, people may be prejudiced, but it is what it is and pointing to the "white male privilege" as why you don't win doesn't do a damn thing but alienate people who otherwise might give you a fair hearing.

And the only way I can get a fair hearing in this forum is to point out that life for a Native American where I grew up is about like being a black man in Mississippi. In 1950. And it sucks, and the last time I saw the reservation where many of my cousins live I cried like a baby. But blaming the "white man" for keeping them down makes about as much sense as blaming them for not fighting harder to succeed. It's all freaking pointless.

Poverty is bad. Prejudice is bad. Why do we have to settle who has it worse before we can set about making it better for everyone? Why are we arguing about whether it's okay for a white woman to be tearing down a black man, when in the end we all get screwed no matter who "wins"?

"Identity politics" isn't the solution, it's become part of the problem.

Just wanted to give a shout-out to ThirdWaveFeminist's comment in Jen's thread. And good for Jen to close the comments and for what she said about the nonsense. Can we all please remember that there are more important things going on in the world today than one person's comments. And no, she is NOT part of the Clinton campaign. If you're gonna slag one of us, get your facts right, people. And remember, other Democratic women are NOT the enemy. George Bush is. Dick Cheney is. Osama Bin Ladin is. Bill O'Reilly is. Rush Limbaugh is. Phyllis Schlafly is. Now quit squabbling and get back to work saving the planet and the country and helping ALL women, not just the ones that pass your litmus test.

Well put Courtney!

Iskpiano, sorry, but this actually is pretty important, for a bunch of reasons. One is that up until she stepped down today (Clinton did not fire her) Ferraro WAS a part of the Clinton campaign. Saying this kind of stuff may not speak for Clinton's campaign in general, but if so Hillary should have let her go.

Another is that acting like "Democratic women are NOT the enemy" implies that Democratic women can't be racist, sexist, classist, homophobic, etc. Why should we have to tolerate Ferraro's racism? She IS the enemy.

If feminism is just about "helping ALL women", and not about eliminating entrenched prejudices based not only on gender, but race, sexual orientation, and a slew of others then a lot of women won't be covered by that "ALL" category, and no men at all will be. This is why I don't identify as a feminist: too many people, including plenty of feminists, think and state that it's about women. I'm an egalitarian, in that I think all prejudices are equally bad and should be treated as such.

Why is it that George Bush can be the enemy, but not Ferraro? Is it because she's a woman, or she's a Democrat, or merely because she no longer holds substantial power? She IS the enemy.

Ferraro's comments were outrageous. As a woman of color, I was deeply saddened not only by her words but also by the Ferraro aftermath. I have always identified as a feminist, but today I had my first real crisis of confidence in feminism as a movement.

We had a woman Prime Minister in the UK for about 15 years. Mrs Thatcher. Remember her? She didn't do women much good. Too much identity politics going on between Clinton & Obama, and not enough focus on their potential policies, I think.

If Barack Obama were a nice Irish boy from Chicago named Billy O'Bannion, he would have locked up the nomination weeks ago. Ferraro is playing the race card so Clinton won't have to, and I'm glad she resigned from the campaign. The last thing the Democrats need is to tear each other part and let John McCain waltz into office.

If Barack Obama were a nice Irish boy from Chicago named Billy O'Bannion, he would have locked up the nomination weeks ago. Ferraro is playing the race card so Clinton won't have to, and I'm glad she resigned from the campaign. The last thing the Democrats need is to tear each other part and let John McCain waltz into office.

Whoops, double post. Sorry!

1. Politics is always stupid and usually racist/sexist.

2. Yelling at Democrats for "tearing each other apart" and thereby tossing it to the Repubs is to ignore that our machines, process, media, and population are in fact totally skewed towards adoring the scary conservative godbags who want me to stick a hanger up my box instead of see a doctor for abortions. Which I understand, actually. This is hard to accept.

3. Uhm, so a second-wave feminist said something you find divisive, and your response was to (instead of like, contacting her) write a sensational article about how divisive all second-wave feminists are? I'm glad that second-wavers are the only ones who ever engage in divisive behavior, or else I'd think you were being sort of stupid.

I know this is hard for Gerladine to wrap her head around but Barack Obama IS actually a white man. He is as much a white man as he is a black man. That no one has said that (and that that obvious fact excaped even my first comment in this thread) shows how retardedly limited our view of race and ethnicity is. Her comment was racist, not only because she negated any of Obama's accomplishments by stating he's only gotten this far from being black, but alos because she completely ignored the fact that the man's mother was a white woman.

I know he looks black enough to be entirely black to people who can't wrap their head around anything beyond looks. Fact is, the man is not just black.

Anyways, I like the "Fuck You, Geraldine Ferraro," as a last line to the other post. Her continued whining ("I only got to be a VP nom because I was a woman! So I'm not racist! You're racist! Everyone's mean to me!") even as she resigns as fundraiser proves that she's a fucking loon.

I must be one of the very few people here who actually do see her reasoning then. I think she was being sincere in her comments regarding her own nomination as well. Politics does favor candidates who represent the sensational, and who can stand for a larger political sentiment of change as well as whatever platform (or lack thereof) that they happen to have. I really don't think that Obama or Clinton are qualified to president compared to what has historical stood as the greater presidents. I don't know that Ferraro's argument holds water entirely, but I do think it's too easy to dismiss her as simply racist without actually looking at the political reality of the argument as well.

This is such a difficult subject. But isn't Ferraro's comment similar to the one made by Gloria Steinem in her NYTimes op-ed? Steinem's was focused on gender, Ferraro's comments on race.

Perhaps they were not presented as well as they could have, but isn't there a grain of truth in what she said? If Obama had the exact same qualifications and background, but was white, would he have the lead in the presidential race today? Whether we agree with her comments, it's a fair question to raise.

For better or worse -- mostly worse -- our country is still one that is focused too much on race and gender as subjects. But if we talk about it openly, maybe that can change.

This is such a difficult subject. But isn't Ferraro's comment similar to the one made by Gloria Steinem in her NYTimes op-ed? Steinem's was focused on gender, Ferraro's comments on race.

Perhaps they were not presented as well as they could have, but isn't there a grain of truth in what she said? If Obama had the exact same qualifications and background, but was white, would he have the lead in the presidential race today? Whether we agree with her comments, it's a fair question to raise.

For better or worse -- mostly worse -- our country is still one that is focused too much on race and gender as subjects. But if we talk about it openly, maybe that can change.

If Obama had the exact same qualifications and background, but was white, would he have the lead in the presidential race today? Whether we agree with her comments, it's a fair question to raise.

Why is it a fair question to raise?

Chris on a crutch. Where to start?

To those who argue that Ferraro's comments weren't racist:
Are you fucking kidding? Two words for you: 'dog whistle'. If you don't know what that means you shouldn't be commenting on campaign statements. The pinnacle of Ferraro's career was also the nadir of post civil rights race-baiting in the public sphere. Welfare queens were driving Caddys. Blacks and women were stealing admissions spots and jobs from better-qualified white males. Liberal guilt manifested as the welfare state and affirmative action was destroying the meritocracy that is the foundation of the American Dream. Or so publc figures said, openly and often.

Ferraro just invoked all of that. She confirmed that to me when she claimed to be the victim of reverse racism -- the banner claim of racists in the 80s and early 90s.

To those buying into the myth of Obama's inexperience:
Research before you type, I implore you. Facts are remarkably easy to come by. True, it's takes even less effort to repeat Republican talking points recycled by HRC's campaign. The problem with the latter is that it's stupid, sloppy, and dangerous. For a little taste of the former, try http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/obama-actually.html. Then let's chat about how Obama's only advantage is his speaking skill.

To those, young and old, suckered into the oppression olympics:
The oppressors thank you. As long as white women and people of color are at odds, as long as women of color are erased, as long as we're arguing about whether Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama has it worse, they (you know, the folks who actually are the problem) don't have to use their resources to maintain dominance.

Right now, we're doing it for them.

In regards to Obama's inexperience that blog post proves nothing. It isn't an issue of him not passing bills, or that the bills he wants to pass are not excellent. It's a matter of experience as defined by time spent in DC learning how the system works. Not that I think anyone cares, but I'd really recommend Paul Charles Light's The President's Agenda.

So it's better to just stifle any hesitation we have regarding Obama or Clinton in favor or racial and gender harmony? Sorry, but I refuse to accept any canditate who doesn't meet my standards just on account of some vision of equality. Bring me a candidate who is a woman and/or a minority who I can actually stand behind and maybe then these issues won't arise.

Sigh.

No one should vote for a candidate unless they want to.

No one who wants to be taken seriously should provide specious reasons for disliking a candidate.

Previous years of national political experience prior to becoming President:

George W. Bush: 0.
Bill Clinton: 0.
Ronald Reagan: 0.
Jimmy Carter: 0.
Dwight Eisenhower: 0.
Franklin Roosevelt: 0.
Herbert Hoover: 0 (appointed to Cabinet but not elected).
Calvin Coolidge: 0.
Woodrow Wilson: 0.
William Taft: 0 (Cabinet but not elected).
Theodore Roosevelt: 0.

Gosh golly, we wouldn't want a President who hasn't spent any time in DC, now would we?

The 'no experience' crap is a Republican talking point. It has no business showing its face among Democrats.

Which is easier? To be a male of color or a woman (regardless of race)? I would argue that the first trumps the second in our society. Male privilege transcends racial lines. I do think that Ferraro’s comment was more racist than not however.

I hate that the democratic primary has been framed in such a racist and sexist way... but when you look honestly at America, is it really that surprising?! I love the fact that our new commander in chief will (hopefully) not be a white male (other issues may finally be addressed properly if that is the case! .. yes race and gender issues). I voted for Hilary because I think she is a stronger candidate, and because I agree with more of her proposed policies. I am hoping against hope that she will promote and pass pro-choice legislation, remove the global gag rule, implement a better nationwide healthcare policy, improve our school system and maybe even make paid maternity leave mandatory (imagine that), i.e., make my life a hell of a lot better (not to mention countless other women).

But I would be ecstatic if either candidate won. They both have great policy proposals and I want a democrat back in the White House!

You know, I'm all for moving past divisive statements and ideas about race and gender, but for the love of the FSM, could we please please please not then substitute in a false dichotomy between "older" feminists and "young" feminists?

I realize that many people, Courtney included, have been careful to emphasize that they're talking about some older feminists, but frankly the idea at play is still the same.

If anyone wants to make a distinction between two or more schools of thought or types of feminisms, that's one thing, but I for one would like to avoid polarizing women based merely upon when they were born. Want to point out a correlation between age and views on sexism or racism? Go for it, but offer more than anectodal evidence and don't make sweeping generalizations. There are already enough harmful stereotypes about feminists and women based upon age. Let's not add to it, hey?

jfaustus, don't forget the even larger list of president's with heaps of prior D.C. experience who ended up being some of our worst national leaders.

Ford
johnson
Buchanan
Garfield
Van Buren

and I promise, read ANY biography of LBJ written by a reputiable historian and they will demonstrate how LBJ's D.C. experience crippled his presidency.

I dunno, jfaustus, I'm not convinced by your list. George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Herbert Hoover, were terrible. I don't want them. FDR is far more convincing. My mother says that Carter was so ineffective precisely because he lacked the experience to broker any deals.

EG, either list should show you a simple fact: the correlation between experience and the quality of the presidency is very weak. If you have a few minutes, make a scatter plot with the axises of experience and quality (the latter according to you). You'll quickly see why this experience talk is a load of BS.

...Consider the incredible obstacles that confront a black person attempting to achieve political power, especially when the person is looking to move beyond advocating for African-American issues. How many black Senators have we had? Representatives? Governors? Supreme Court Justices? Presidents?

Given the obvious and tremendous hurdles faced by African-Americans in ascending to political power, the argument that Obama has benefited politically from his race strikes me as so silly to be nonsensical.
Posted by: PaperCup

Depends where you start looking.

I don't think anyone can claim that a black person is generally advantaged in in the U.S., or that they are advantaged in general if they were born and wanted to become a politician (much less a president.)

I am not sure what Ferraro would say about that statement, but arguing otherwise doesn't pass the laugh test. Overall, being non-white is a huge hurdle.

However, exceptions exist. It's not all that difficult to imagine an isolated instance where, if you temporarily ignore the prior racism that affected their chance to enter the competition at ALL, being black could be an advantage.

IOW, does the "being black is a benefit" apply to any random person at any time? Hell, no. But it might--MIGHT--apply to the Presidential race, if you limit your analysis to the race itself.

That may well be, Dio. But the simple fact is that not having experience doesn't necessarily tell you anything either.

EG, That was my point. I should have been more clear. When i speak of experience I don't mean positive or negative. Hence the scatter plot.

Um, EG, that was sorta my point? First of all, Obama DOES have experience (see my comment upthread a bit). Someone responded to that comment by saying, "But he doesn't have Deeee Ceeeee experience..." Which I thought was kinda stupid, so I posted my list.

The point is we should be talking about plans and policies, NOT regurgitating Republican talking points.

Netier DC experience nor lack thereof is indicative of success in the Presidency. My list contains some of the best (FDR, Wilson, Teddy) and worst (um, Bush) Presidents we've had. SO instead of walking headlong into an obvious smokescreen, let's TALK ABOUT WHAT FUCKING MATTERS!

Sorry, shouln't have yelled. Just frsutrated by the general tenor of politics this primary season. Apologies to EG and everyone else.

Experience is about power--having it, sharing it, working with others who have it. What experience do these folks have with power?

Being a member of an enormous group, where you have little individual power, is nice. Being a member of a smaller group, where you have more individual power, is better.

Hey, house-senate difference! Whaddya know, convenient, huh?

Being in a position where you have to lead/represent/be accountable to/ a comparatively small or homogeneous group is good. Being in the same position with a large heterogenous group is better.

Hey, whaddya know? Being governor of California is probably going to give you more experience than being one of the 50 national U.S. Representatives.

And so on.

An "experience" list which lists Clinton and Regan as having had equivalent experience to Obama doesn't pass the smell test, ya know?

"An "experience" list which lists Clinton and Regan as having had equivalent experience to Obama doesn't pass the smell test, ya know?"

the list pertained only to D.C. experience and was used to counter a comment claiming the value of D.C. experience. Why's that smell?

in addition to not calling out "older" feminists for being worse on race than "younger" feminists, i think it's weak, given the bent of this comment thread, to suggest that third-wavers, generally speaking, are any more enlightened on race than second-wavers.

i mean, really.

SERIOUSLY. I'm with Paper Cup and everone else whose jaws are lying on the floor right now. The idea that a black man has a better shot at being President in this country than a white man is about as reasonable as the assertion that, if I tie a towel around my neck and shout "up, up and away", I can fly.

I'm also feeling Texas Yankee, here... In addition to what TY mentioned, JFK played a serious role in continuing our commitment in Vietnam and backed a Baathist/military coup in Iraq (ever hear of Saddam Hussein? - hello!?)

That said, if you DON'T include Obama's experience teaching Con Law at University of Chicago Law School, and you DO include JFK's experience in the Navy, they each had 18 years of prior government/ public policy/ military experience.

But, whatever. Read that Obsidian Wings link. It didn't work for me so I'll repost it here.

I'm not even really an Obama supporter, but this shit makes me sick. I mean, come on!

Peace.

yes said: "It's important to point out the flaws in their approaches, and fix them for today's feminists, but can't we do that without constantly berating them?"

Woah, Nellie. Who are "today's feminists" and how do you figure that Geraldine Ferraro isn't one? Is there some magic age (like in Children of the Corn, perhaps) at which you young feminists get to kick us old ladies to the curb as irrelevant or "so yesterday?"

How exactly is ageism better than sexism, anyway?