Agreed.

Why? Why hasn't Clinton distanced herself from these comments?

This is just sickening.

You know, I've read several responses to the Ferraro comment in the blogosphere today. Your conclusion best captures my feelings.

Thanks.

It's not that racism doesn't exist against white people, but I cringe when people say it as if they have just dealt with the most appalling injustice. Suddenly, race is important to these champions of equality.

It's especially jarring when voiced by someone who is in the public eye and works for a progressive candidate. It just proves this country is embedded in its prejudices.

I'm struggling to not type obscenities.

I used to think that racism could exist against white people too, but that was because I didn't understand the term "racism" beyond the common public usage (i.e. "racsim"="discrimination against another person based on skin color").

The way I've come to understand it now is that racism entails both prejudice AND power. You can't be a racist if you don't have the same social power. That's not to say that you can't be prejudiced, but I think the meaning of racism has a lot deeper implications than most people realize or understand.

In fact, for all of the tolerance/acceptance/racism topics that they bring up in school, it seems like the issue is never very explicitly addressed. I am guessing that it makes people too uncomfortable to be so frank and have such honest conversation with children and teenagers, which is a damn shame because it leads to misconceptions about things like "reverse-racism," etc. I've been in college for 5 years and it's only very recently that I've even been exposed to this understanding of racism, so I would love to hear someone else's more knowledgeable comments on the topic.

Why? Why hasn't Clinton distanced herself from these comments?

This is just sickening.

Because Geraldine Ferraro works for Clinton's campaign.

Oh, fuck. This sort of thing makes me feel so embarrassed on behalf of white feminists everywhere. Ugh.

Umm...NO. I had to sign up for an account just to address some of the issues going on with this site.
First of all, you're linking to MSNBC. Aren't we still boycotting that network for saying things in this election more outrageous than what Ferraro said? Second, I think it is disrespectful to tell Ferraro to fuck off because of her comments. She was justified in saying how she feels. Believe it or not second wave feminists have done a lot for us even if we don't agree with where they stand in this election. They have every right to be pissed and I believe Ferraro is expressing the sentiments of many older white women at the moment. For the record the Clinton campaign did condone the remarks but what else do you want her to do? Fire Ferraro? Is this payback for Obama's advisor calling Clinton a monster? The reality is that the Obama has been lucky because as a black man he has largely avoided being vetted by the media. And yes, it is largely because he is black and the media is scared to call him out on his record and some of the race baiting he has done in this election. I'm not saying that Clinton is innocent but I AM saying that Obama isn't innocent of doing these things as well. Ferraro's comments were clumsy to say the least but I did get the gist of what she was saying and why as a Clinton supporter and as a woman she is frustrated with the way the media has basically shitted all over Clinton.
Yes, I am a third wave feminist for Clinton and it's disappointing when I see other third wave feminists shit all over the women who have paved the way to make our lives better even if they do say a few stupid remarks every now and then. Feministing is becoming a huge disappointment for a lot of my friends in this election year.

Because Geraldine Ferraro works for Clinton's campaign.

And she didn't use the non-sexist, non-racist word "monster."

Tofurific, yes exactly, the whole idea that "reverse racism" can exist against white people is a bunch of BS. Because racism, like you said, involves both prejudice and power. It's really pathetic when white people start screaming "reverse racism" like Ferraro did with her comment.

There's a good article that talks about the common elements of oppression. It talks about the power structure that must exist in order for certain groups to be dominated by another group which society considers to be the norm.

"The norm must be backed up with institutional power, economic power, and both institutional and individual violence. It is the combination of these three elements that makes complete power and control possible. In the United States, that norm is male, white, heterosexual, Christian, temporarily able-bodied, youthful, and has access to wealth and resources. "

I'd say Ferraro fits into that norm, at least in some ways. So, no Ms. Ferraro, racism doesn't work in both directions.

The article is called: The Common Elements of Oppression by Suzanne Pharr. I think I've posted the link before in one of these threads. Well, here it is again:
http://slanttruth.com/2007/10/03/the-common-elements-of-oppression/

Ferrao is not a person to be taken seriously. She was a miserable veep candidate and is simply a power type impressed with her own power more than the rest of us are. She can raise money, yes, but so can good, solid, non-nutty people. And solid organizations.

She has done Hillary no favors. Nor has Hillary, the aggrieved wife who did not know about her husband's philandering, presently running for president...rather shrilly.

There's a reason why Hillary has not been particularly adamant in distancing herself from Ferraro: She wants to have this conversation. Ferraro is doing what Bill, Hillary, Shaheen, Kerrey, et al could not do: Marginalize Obama as "the black" candidate, another Jesse Jackson who can't win. Also, Hillary knows she can't win based on pledged delegates or the popular vote, so she's trying to destroy Obama and scare superdelegates into voting for her. It also conveniently wounds him for the general election, so after he loses to McCain she'll be able to step in in 2012 and welcome the Democrats back "home" to the mealy mouthed triangulation and DLC centrism of the 1990s. It's a despicable tactic that speaks volumes about the character of these people.
And saying "F-you" to Ferraro is showing her too much respect, if anything.

Oh, sure. Senator Clinton, who developed a national health-care plan as First Lady, is best identified as "an aggrieved wife who did not know about her husband's philandering." Because a woman's primary identity is always in relation to male sexuality. And because we all "know" that she didn't know about it. Well done, McDartle, in striking a blow for sexism.

To say nothing of "shrilly"--"shrill" is what men call women's voices when the women are saying things that the men don't want to hear.

"Why? Why hasn't Clinton distanced herself from these comments?"

She did. You can say that she didn't go far enough, but she did come out and say that she disagreed with Ferraro's comments.

"I do not agree with that," she said. "It is regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides, because we've both had that experience, say things that kind of veer off into the personal. We ought to keep this on the issues."

Being an African American man named Barack Obama won't stop you from being president, but being a woman (of any color) will. I understand the problems that come with turning the election into a case of race vs. sex, but honestly people, I think we're avoiding it for the wrong reasons. Think about it: if Barack Obama was a woman spouting all this emotional rhetoric like "Change!" and the "audacity of hope!" as if politics is some sort of flowery, happy exchange between of different viewpoints--he wouldn't GET THE TIME OF DAY. Seriously. Think about it. No woman would ever be as popular as Obama if they used his campaign platform.

Also, look at all the sex-offensive language surrounding Clinton. It's okay to call her a "cunt" or a "bitch" or make sophomoric jokes about her fixing sandwiches and getting in the kitchen, but can you imagine the kind of outrage that would occur if people joked about Obama's race. It's acceptable to jokingly say, "Go make me a sandwich, Hillary" but what if someone said, "Go pick my cotton, Barack!" As a black female, (and I just have to be completely honest here) I'm not all that enthused about people voting for Obama. And I wholeheartedly agree with Ferraro that he wouldn't be as loved if he were a woman or white man. It's true, so stop denying it.

EvilSlutopia,

That is perhaps the most offensive apology anyone could've made for those comments. They are regrettable because they veer off into the personal? Are you kidding me?

They are offensive because filled with racial prejudice. Call it what it is Clinton, or don't pretend you care at all.

ThirdWaveFeminist, if you ctually believe those things, that Obama has been helped by his race, and in fact would not be in his position if he weren't black, then I really wish you wouldn't call yourself a feminist. Clearly, nothing the third wave has emphasized has sunk in. Sometimes reading feministing comments lately, I really have to ask myself, "did the third wave ever really happen?" Because there are so many young feminists here espousing the same racist, classist drivel the second wave was so guilty of tolerating. It makes me sick.

Okay, Commodoreo8:

Listen, just because someone brings up the issue of race and happens to be white, does not make them racist. As a black female, I can also tell you that Obama has been helped by his race. Besides his flowery rhetoric, what does he have besides the color of his skin? His entire campaign is built on one word and that is "Change"--not pragmatism, not practicality, not experience, but "Change." And what is more indicative of "change" than the fact that he would be the first black president if elected? I'm not going to deny that there are people who support him for other reasons besides his race, but I can certainly see more voters being disillusioned, bored, and cynical about his campaign if he were a white man.

AW,

So because someone engages in horrible, sexists comments that means that a member of the HRC campaign should resort to racist comments?

Both are deplorable.

As for Obama not being successful if he were a woman or a white man that's just rubbish. Obama is smart, charismatic, engaging, and has run a brilliantly calculated campaign.

I could just as easily argue that if he were a white man or a woman of color, the primary would have been over a month ago.

But what benefit does either argument provide other than to call the other side racist?

EG, I think I'm developing a forum crush on you. ; )

Thirdwavefem- there is no duality in your line of reasoning.

This is so much more complicated than racism vs. sexism. Must we choose one ideology over the other? I have heard it put that racism is more malicious while sexism is less reprehensible. Neither of these things are good, but in different ways.

I'm furious over how Hillary's been treated by the media. But no matter what way you cut it Ferraro made a very ignorant statement and is taking this 'war' tit-for-tat.

I suppose that's what what politics does, but that doesn't mean Ferraro shouldn't go fuck herself.

Sometimes reading feministing comments lately, I really have to ask myself, "did the third wave ever really happen?" Because there are so many young feminists here espousing the same racist, classist drivel the second wave was so guilty of tolerating. It makes me sick.

I agree completely. I've been pretty down about all of this. Now is the time that the racist bullshit shouldn't be coming from feminists. Not that it ever should, but feminists should really be celebrating the Democratic presidential race. Reading some of the comments here and comments made by prominent women of second wave feminism makes me think, "Really? You're still racist?" What are these same people going to say when a Black woman runs against a gay man? Are we going to get into this "oppression Olympics" all over again? It's really sad, because I thought feminists were better than that. I thought we came a longer way than that.

Kristen,

I don't think that what Ferraro said was racist. As I mentioned earlier, just because someone brings up the fact that Obama is black, does not, I repeat, does not make them racist. It's getting extremely tedious to hear people bringing up racism every time you say the word "black."
Also, Ferraro is arguing that Obama's race is helping him in this election, which is at least partially true, and I believe it. I think the combination of his gender, race, and sentimental rhetoric is going to get him the nomination. Now, do I think he's an incredibly smart and well-spoken guy? Yes. Do I think he is genuine, sincere, and an all around good person? Yes. But I refuse to accept this Obama-craze nonsense (that is partially rooted in sexism by the way), and vote for him only because of those qualities.

This conversation can veer off into a very strange, hostile direction especially if we start getting into the intersection of gender and race, so I'll end this comment here.

AW--

I get so sick of hearing people say that there is nothing substantive to Obama besides rhetoric and his race. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, and was the first black president of arguably the most prestigious law school in the nation. Obviously, this made him an extremely desirable law recruit, but he instead chose to dedicate his life to public service. Have you read any of Obama's writing? The Audacity of Hope pretty much lays out his vision for the country, issue by issue. However, I'm sure it's far more expedient to recite the Clinton campaign lines that Obama "lacks substance" than to actually educate yourself on what his plans are.

"Also, Ferraro is arguing that Obama's race is helping him in this election, which is at least partially true, and I believe it."

I don't believe this even partially true. Sure there may be some African-Americans who have voted for him based on his race...as I'm sure there are some non-African-Americans who have voted against him because of his race. And if we're going to talk about media "soft-balls" as Ferraro was lets not forget the kit gloves the press used on Bill Clinton during his first run. Was that racially motivated as well?

So other than just your opinion and Ferraro's is there any evidence at all that Obama has been "assisted" by his race?

Ferrarro is clearly a racist. Somebody on CNN tried to excuse her behavior by stating that she has cancer and that her chemotherapy treatments were fucking up her brain and that she wasnt thinking clearly.

But thats a load of bullshit, because Ferrarro has come out twice since the original comments and refuses to back down.

Not only that, but over 20 years ago in 1988 she said the EXACT SAME BULLSHIT about Jessie Jackson! I'm no fan of JJ but this represents a clear trend of racist rhetoric on the part of Ferrarro.

Clinton needs to get rid of her ASAP.

There are a two main things I'd like to comment on:

Firstly, I agree that her initial comment was not in and of itself racist. What did upset me, however, was that she not only stuck to her statement, but then claimed that all those people outraged were actually racist against her. You cannot look back on that statement and not think to yourself "well, yes, I can see why they would think that." Instead of elaborating on what she meant by it, she decided to further inject race into it and show complete ignorance in the matter.

Secondly, please, please, please, let's stop with the whole Obama has no substance and ONLY got here because of his race. Yes, there are people out there who vote for him only because he is African American, just as there are people who vote for H. Clinton only because she is a woman. But there are also people on both sides who vote AGAINST these candidates because of their minority status. Let's not forget that. Let's also not forget that, as badnfluence pointed out, this is an incredibly intelligent, articulate, accomplished man who has worked very hard to get where he is today. Of course there's luck in that, just as there is in any success, but let's give credit where credit is due.

AW, it's not that Farraro just said that Obama's black, it's that she said being black is an asset to him. Then she tried to make it seem that she was only being criticized for saying that because she's white.

She's being criticized for saying it because it is presumptuous and biased, and she sounded like a fool.

And just like I'm sick of Hillary being openly, and without repercussions, bashed for being a woman, this idea that the only reason people vote for Obama is that they are "caught up with the idea of change" is bullshit and it's dismissive.

AW, wow...just wow.

There are so many things wrong with your statements I think my head is about to explode. The one thing I would like to ask is for you to enlighten me as to how exactly stating that someone is loved/only got or is getting a job/is considered good for a position/etc. is because of the color of their skin is not racist? I must have really been asleep during some feminism/anti-racist 101 because that sounds like some racist bullshit to me.

Oh, and just because the end product of someone's jacked up belief, or their stereotype of a race is "positive" doesn't mean it's not racist. As a fellow woman of color I get pretty fucking sick and tired of hearing about the model minority and how we Asians should be happy with that depiction.

There are a lot of really disheartening comments here, for many reasons. First of all, it is horrible to see how everyone plays into the political spin. Not only is the Democratic Party hostiley diided, so are feminists. Shame on everyone for falling for the media induced strife.

The media is sexist towards Clinton, racist towards Obama, and the least these two candidates could to combat it is to rise above it instead is sluging it out in it. Obmama fired the person on his campaign that called Clinton a monster, she should in return fire Ferraro. Period.

We have two really qualified, intelligent and capable candidates running for the Democratic ticket. Those who say Obama isn't qualified or is all hype and rhetoric, have obviously not taken the time to research his voting record, look at his political plans, etc. As far as Clinton goes, she receives such horrible treatment in the media, people who are pro-Clinton have a huge chip on their shoulder (as they should) about everything to do with this election.

With all of the sniping, the back and forth comments about sexism and racism, everyone is ignoring what a fucking moronic shitheel McCain is. I really think that time would be better served raking him over the coals for being BOTH racist and sexist and horribly damaging not just for our country but others.

However, instead, everyone is playing into the mainly media created war of sexism vs. racism.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/19/clintons_struggle_vexes_feminists/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed3

I read this comment on another site and this summarizes what Ferraro meant fairly well:
The comments were only inflammatory because Obama’s campaign *made* them that way. Ferraro’s comments were very much like Gloria Steinem’s remarks in the NY Times a while back. The difference is that Ferraro was clumsy. She was speaking not writing. It’s hard to edit words after they’ve left your mouth.
And yes, she’s getting crap because she’s white. That doesn’t make white people victims of reverse discrimiation. It just means that a Clinton supporter can’t say ANYTHING about Obama without it getting twisted as racism and it hits her white supporters harder.
I am not buying this “unfortunate remarks� crap. That’s just what they want. They want her people to be so scared of saying anything that they say nothing. Now is the time to stand up and say “Deal with it.� It’s time the media and Obama’s people stop screaming with outrage about every utterance from a Clinton supporter’s mouth.

Jayble: Are you serious? When has the media been racist to Obama or at least as sexist as it has been to Clinton? Turn on MSNBC or CNN anytime of the day and more than likely you'll find them kissing Obama's ass.
If you want to talk about racism why hasn't Feministing posted that idiotic NYTimes article by Patterson from yesterday. The most racist column I've ever seen printed by the NYTimes. Why hasn't anyone commented on that? Or the fact that Obama has been using the okey-doke, hoodwink, bamboozled card?

"it getting twisted as racism"

That's an interesting interpretation. So I'm assuming you'd be comfortable with Obama saying precisely the same thing about her and you wouldn't consider that sexism?

T-Monster and Jayble:

The "sexism vs. racism" war was not created by the media. In fact, it was pretty much established when black men got the right to vote in American before women. I think that ignoring the friction caused by the intersection of race and gender is incredibly dismissive and unfair. While there is no definitive way of determining why people vote for whichever candidate, what we do know is that people are CERTAINLY more cautious about mentioning or joking about Obama's race than Hillary's gender (as I mentioned earlier). And it's not fair. It's not fair that it happens in the first place, and it's not fair that people try to ignore it for fear of playing into the "sexism vs. racism" war. Let me tell you: there is no war. Why? It's already been determined: being a woman will get people calling you a cunt, talking about your clothes, and how much you cry. You can be an educated, black guy and...well, let me just stop here.

ThirdWaveFeminist-
Of course I am serious. I just can't believe that you are serious, but that is probably because your comments are just poisonous.

Also, your attacks on Feministing are crap. If you think they should cover something they missed, send them a message - that is what the rest of the people who aren't operating with a chip on their shoulder do when they think Feminsting should cover something important.

Kristen,

If Obama had made similar comments about Hillary, I'd think he was dead wrong, not sexist. For the love of God, you can argue that someone is being helped by their race, and not necessarily be "racist." She's not saying that he's been given handouts his entire life because of his race; she's simply noting that him being black is a stand-out factor in this election, WHICH IT IS. Why are we in such denial here? If he was white, his whole platform wouldn't be as big of a deal. It would be just like any other election with two candidates promising to change America for the better and nothing more. That doesn't mean that the entirety of Obama's popularity is based on his blackness, but it is a factor, and to deny that is just so horribly naive.

Also, the same isn't as true for Clinton since, as I mentioned earlier, her gender is more of a detriment. (see article I posted for reference)

I'm closing comments on this thread. If you want to continue to talk about Ferraro, you can do it in Courtney's post.

Most of you are fantastic, but a few of the comments here are making me sick.

You can argue that Obama has it easier than Clinton forever, but not in threads I start. Not anymore.

AW,
Thanks for that comment, and I don't disagree. My point was more that this election being about racism and sexism was media created.

People are forgetting that Obama and Clinton are on the same side. That was my overarching point. By arguing vehemently and poisonously for either candidate in terms of race and sex we are causing more harm than good for the future of the presidential race for whatever candidate wins.

Also, the damage that has been caused to the feminist movement by the seriously hateful racist and sexist bullshit that is going on distresses me greatly. Especially when I see how many commenters at this site are buying into it.

We should know better and rise above the bullshit.