I think it is perfectly appropriate for Obama to address race in America. Sure African Americans are not the only people with a racial identity but anyone is well within his or her rights to address the topic, especially if it needed to be addressed-- which it did and has for a while.

The bigger, more important question is not why Hillary didn't address race in America after Ferraro's comments, but why hasn't Hillary addressed SEX in America at the same depth, especially since she has been subject to such gendered attacks. Why? Probably because she doesn't want to be seen as "capitalizing" off of her sex-- which I'm sure the pundits and the public would try to say she was doing even though she is well within her rights to address her gender identity just as much as Obama is within his rights to talk about race. The whole dichotomy of his race and her sex and just how much it is exposing about racism and sexism in this country is truly fascinating.

by the same token, why aren't you asking how Obama managed to leave out gender from his speech entirely?

I agree with all that has been said above. I believe that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be saying more about racism AND sexism AND homophobia AND other important issues that are not getting enough attention in this campaign.

zoelawgirl, I wasn't saying it was inappropriate for Obama to address race. I was just saying, as Bob says, I want to see all candidates addressing all of these issues.

This was a beautiful speech but I felt the same as Lucretia. Why will no one speak for the history of discrimination and persecution that women (of all races) have experienced in this country?

Yes, the founding fathers created a flawed documented not only because of regulating power away from people of color but also from women.

Our country needs to have this type of frank and honest, no-apologies discussion about sexism. And Obama could have done that.

He just glossed over it. And that's a damn shame cause I'm sure he could have said it well.

"Why, after Geraldine Ferraro's comments, didn't Hillary Clinton stand up and deliver a speech on how she sees race in America?"

Umm... maybe because Obama is the one with the anti-semitic, anti-US, anti-white preacher that he needs to explain away?

There's a lot more to be said than this, but I thought it was, for the most part, an excellent speech. This was the first time in this entire primary season that I have come even close to understanding what the hype about Obama is about. He really took a chance in saying things that many people don't want to hear in general, but especially not in the context of the brouhaha over Rev. Wright's comments. That took guts.

At the same time I am with other people in that one of my first thoughts after the speech ended was - why couldn't someone (H. Clinton, perhaps) give a speech like this about gender? I think zoelawgirl is right that Clinton would be perceived as trying to use her gender to her "advantage" (hah) if she were to do the same thing.

I agree, Lucretia.

What offended me the most about Wright's speech was NOT his criticism of white privilege (which was totally valid) but his blatant refusal to acknowledge sexism and how he totally played the "Oppression Olympics" card.

Unfortunately, nobody seemed to notice this because a bunch of uppity white people were too busy getting their panties in a twist over the supposed "racism" of his speech.

And it absolutely offended me that, in his rebuttal, Obama didn't feel it necessary to address Wright's attacks on Hillary and his refusal to acknowledge the oppression of women in general. I understand that politically, he has to be extraordinarily careful about what he says, and waxing poetic on the evils of sexism often leads to a backlash, but damn, it would be nice if someone, ANYONE, would stand up and fucking say what needs to be said, regardless of the political consequences. For me, it was a disappointing speech by the dude who's supposed to bring about all this revolutionary change. I'm just not buying it - and especially not now. And the worst thing is, it seems to me like people are so swept up in Obamamania that the guy's like Teflon - nobody dares to even try to think critically about any aspect of his campaign. It's like people are afraid to dig deep because they're so wrapped up in this promise of hope, they're afraid to discover something that would shatter their near-religious belief in the man that's supposed to save us all. But if we want real change, we can't let our leaders slide by when they miss something, no matter how much we believe in them.

I mean, Jesus Christ. All of this bullshit actually makes me wish all the candidates were white dudes - at least there's no surprise, no disappointment with that bunch. What should be a revolutionary and historical election is rapidly turning into a clusterfuck I just want to be over.

Tobes, zoe, etc. - I don't think this was the time to address gender at length. Obama really needed to respond specifically to the criticisms of Wright's commments, most of which were about race. I suppose he could have said something about gender in response to Wright's statement about Clinton having an easier time in the primaries than Obama, though.

Why is it that only the black guy is expected to talk about race in America? Because only people of color are "raced", just like women are "gendered" (as though white was not a race and male is not a gender). It is a continuing erroneous assumption that only POC do/should/have no choice but to deal with race- exempting white people from having address the issue. Similarly, only women are presumed to be affected by things labeled "gender issues," absolving men from having to think about/deal with them. Following this line of thought we do not think to ask Clinton to address the issue of race in America following Ferraro's comments and do not expect Obama to address issues (beyond the obligatory "Right to Choose") that are seen as "women's issues". In all, we have little to no substantive public discourse on issues that in truth affect everyone. Right on, Ann.

I don't know -- maybe I'm underwhelmed with this speech for the same reason I've been overwhelmed with everything Obama has ever said, but I was greatly disappointed.

Obama had a prime chance to talk seriously about race in America, with much of America listening and even unskeptical, and as far as I'm concerned he blew it. He made it sound like just another feel-good campaign speech. Who the hell else gets the chance to indict racism to a nationwide audience that actually wants to listen?

I appreciated Obama's discussion of his relationships within a religious community, even if they were mostly excuses for his back-pedaling on his stance vis-a-vis a potentially polarizing mentor. But Obama was in a unique position to sneak something really progressive -- and substantial -- into that milquetoasty oratory of his. He could have tackled enduring racism in America rather than implicitly relegating it to the annals of history. Slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow... Well, okay, but how about public education, immigration law, drug law, the "war on terror" and police brutality? Instead, Obama trotted out the old "why can't we all just get along?" platitude and just harped on himself and his background.

I'm going to agree with diablaazul. This was a speech in regards to race, not gender. While it would have been nice to have him address that, I'm not going to attack him because he failed to address every single problem. He had a specific purpose in this, to address what should be a non-issue but became an issue about his pastor's comments on racial relations in America and I think he did a magnificent job. Hillary Clinton has had opportunties to address sexism and for whatever reasons she's avoided doing it, probably because it would be turned against her either way. Barak was backed into a corner to do this and I'm sure had his pators video not gotten out he wouldn't have done this today or ever at all if he could avoid it.

Oh, and I'm waiting for the same critical discussion that we're so willing to have about race and gender to happen around religion. *Snort* not in my lifetime, I know, but um, can someone please point out the fact that all of these candidates subscribe to Judeo-Christian belief systems and Atheists are apparently not fit to serve as leaders? And yeah, hey - hows about some mention of homophobia/heterosexism? No? Ooookay! Thanks, "progressives"!

Oh, I guess I'm asking too much. I know, I know - they gave us race and gender, so I should just shut the fuck up already.

everybodyever, he *did* talk about public education, immigration, etc. . . . very clearly, I thought. This what not a speech I would at all describe as milquetoast (in contrast to my feelings about almost everything else he's said).

soy milk: i totally agree with you-- with everything you said. try telling that to my husband for whom the obama kool-aid has been particularly strong.

i also agree that this was an appropriate response to the rev.'s remarks. addressing sexism would have made it too long-- too complicated. let's be honest, it's a speech, not a dissertation. Hillary had the same chance to address sexism in the same way-- over and over again-- and she blew it. At least Obama took on the responsibility of bringing it into the discussion. I'm really disappointed that she did not when she had the chance.

UltraMagnus: Did you actually watch the videos of Wright that practically forced Obama to make this speech? If not, I suggest you do and then maybe you'll understand why people are demanding that Obama address gender issues as well.

As I previously stated, people's reaction to the videos were all wrong. They were mostly offended by the preacher pointing out white privilege (which again, the exposure of white privilege is totally necessary), meanwhile he basically went on an anti-Hillary tirade, stating that Hillary has never really faced oppression, and nobody seemed to notice this glaring pile of bullshit. Um, WTF? Yes, Obama should have addressed this. To pretend that gender isn't an issue in this whole scandal is totally offensive.

Here's the video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=hAYe7MT5BxM

soymilk, yes I did watch the video, the rev said that Hillary is addressing race when she's never been called a nigger, and I agree. The Clinton family has had this love from the black community that is now challenged because there is actually someone who has gone through what we have.

But if that is the case, Obama has never been called a cunt or harrassed on the street so should he be addressing gender on behalf of his rival? He could talk about how gender roles hurt everyone but again, that's not what the MSM was attacking him for in this and he's addressing what they're attacking him for, which I believe is correct.

I agree with zoelawgirl-- for him to try to address sexism (or any other type of discrimination) would have taken entirely too long and I think it may have even come off as too much info at one time. By making his speech about one particular issue, he can really take the time to present a well-articulated speech that grabs people and makes them think.

And I must say that the longer this campaign goes on, the less I understand H. Clinton's campaign. She has increasingly played the gender card in subtle (sometimes not-so-subtle) ways. Because of this, I kept expecting her to really take the time to issue some sort of substantive address about sexism, much like Obama's speech today. But she didn't. She just keeps making statements along the lines of "I represent change by being a woman" which really means nothing to me because it's such an empty statement. It really frustrates me that she does this...

Incredible speech! Obama answered a lot of my questions and I believe most Democrats will be satisfied- if not orgasmic. Probably Independents too.

I wonder....if Hillary gave a similar speech about sexism and gender issues in the US, would she be as lauded as a ground-breaker and praised by the national media the same way Obama is? I'm guessing NO. I'm guessing she would be dismissed as a divisive whiner.

Wow, after watching as much of that as I could stand, yeah, I do think mentioning that women go through some shit too would have been appropriate. Wasn't the Wright video just begging for a line by line rebuttal though? Hillary has never been called a n-, but she sure has been called a bitch! Etc. I'm just so sick of this kind of thing, I want it to be election day and just get it over with.

visionaria -

I'm sorry, when has Clinton said that she represents change by being a woman? She has pointed out that her campaign is a historic one, as is Obama's (and Obama has done the same), but I can't think of a single occasion where she has suggested that she should be elected President because she is a woman.* Most of her rhetoric about "change" has centered on her claim that she had spent her career "making change" not just talking about it. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Clinton has staked her campaign on being a woman. In fact my impression is that - like Obama with the question of race - she has tried quite a bit to minimize gender as an issue in the election, since it's not an issue she can really win on.

*Of course some of her supporters have said this, but that's not the issue at hand.

You know Ann you could ask why Obama has yet to address the issue of gender. I am only saying this because you are using this as some sort of offense by Hillary. Strange you could not see the opposite of Obama.

I mean the man has daughters and yet he never speaks of gender. I think if he would, I would be more comfortable voting for him.

I must admit I thought that Obama's speech was amazing. However he uses that same language of the founding fathers he speaks of. He had the chance here to explain that the fight for equality was a human fight. But Obama's speech still speaks only of the equality of MEN.

So forgive me but I found that to be a little irksome. I still thought he made a good speech, but it looks like even Obama could heed the advice of Abigail Adams:

"If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation."

Diablazuul,

Thanks for the note. I realize that Obama mentioned those things; my disappointment is with how briefly he glossed over them. His mention of racism in public education today was all of a single sentence long.

Five pages into his speech's transcription, Obama finally began to tackle something tangible and to attempt what seems like progress rather than retrospective healing:

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

That is what I think this speech could have used much more of. Unfortunately, having read the rest of it, I find no explanation of those deeds Obama demanded that was any more specific than was his entreaty that we invest in our communities. And I find few more specific indictments than that sentence concerning public education. It is here, in discussing the day-to-day roles race plays in the lives of the Americans who will vote for him and making commitments to solid goals regarding how to change them, that Obama has left me wanting.

The Clinton family has had this love from the black community that is now challenged because there is actually someone who has gone through what we have.
This is a good point. I do have to point out that, for 50% of the black community, Hillary has also faced similar struggles (of gender) as they have, but I am in no way saying that one candidate deserves women of color's support over another etc. And being a white woman, my opinion on racial politics in this election is pretty moot anyway. I didn't exactly take what Wright was saying as "Hillary shouldn't be addressing race because she hasn't lived racism" (which I do agree with). I interpreted his comments in more of a "what the fuck does this privileged white woman know about oppression of any kind?" way. I may be wrong in my interpretation, but I think we can all agree that sentiment is total bullshit.

He could talk about how gender roles hurt everyone but again, that's not what the MSM was attacking him for in this and he's addressing what they're attacking him for, which I believe is correct.
I've already noted that people were upset about the race, not gender, content of the guy's speech, so you make another good point. Obama has to address what the people want him to - that's a given. I suppose I can't fault him for that.

I guess where I get lost in this whole thing. I wish more people WANTED sexism addressed. Unfortunately, even on a feminist message board, it seems people just aren't demanding it. And I almost feel like someone like Obama with such a near-rabid following could easily start that discussion. I'm not saying it's his responsibility to, but anybody who is running on this campaign of "hope" and "change" should willing to challenge the inherent sexism in both this election and in society, or at least acknowledge that it exists and is harmful. His speech was about race, yes, but it was also about oppression - it was an opportunity to address what it seems people are afraid to (except folks like Ferraro who REALLY fuck up the message).

And the "too long" excuse? Oh come the fuck on. A couple of sentences to acknowledge that women face a unique and widespread kind of oppression is too much to ask? What website am I on again?

Oh and:
if Hillary gave a similar speech about sexism and gender issues in the US... I'm guessing she would be dismissed as a divisive whiner.
Rose_Red, I would put money on it. I'm SO not trying to start an "Obama vs. Hillary / who has it worse" debate, because that's mad nonconstructive, but yeah, I cannot see the reaction to Hillary addressing gender being the same as Obama addressing race.

Too busy today to watch the video but, I have to say, it seems weird that anyone would expect a substantive speech from a politician (ANY politician). Isn't that an oxymoron?

I get what you're saying SoyMilk, and I'd love it if a candidate would seriously address sexism in this manner, and perhaps if Clinton or Obmama get the nomination then the feminist blogosphere or main stream feminists can go, "okay, enough of this shit, let's have this conversation" and they'd have to fight tooth and nail to get that.

I know a lot of women were like, 'WTF" with those comments from the Rev and I've had serious debates with my black friends who've critized Hillary for being a women, or for not "controlling" her man but I will admit that I agreed that she can't fully understand racism, but that doesn't mean she doesn't understand discrimination at all and the own unique form of sexism and there's a bridge there.

Perhaps in the future, like now, we can have a serious discussion on sexism and we need to.

Everybodyever- Most of the commentary that I have seen on Wright attack him for even saying that America has a racist society or that racism beyond the "kkk type" is prevalent. I don’t think there is any way that Obama could have even begun to honestly address the issue of enduring institutional racism in America as most white Americans don’t believe that to be true and accuse anyone who does either suffers from false “white guilt� or is an “angry black man/woman�. At this point it seems Obama is doing everything he can to not get painted into the Malcolm X of 2008 (ridiculous as the idea seems). If Obama publicly addressed institutional racism at this point, most people would say he is agreeing with Rev. Wright. (as though that was really all that problematic).

Yay for Wright aggressively addressing white privilege! Boo for Wright playing lame oppression olympics and denying the oppression of women.

Yay for Obama for such a huge speech tackling race issues!
Boo for Obama shying away from really addressing white privilege and institutional racism.

soy milk and zoelawwoman -

you'll probably both accuse me of drinking the "kool aid" but i'll give this a shot regardless.

obama has been the only candidate addressing the issue of homophobia in his speeches. he brought it up on MLK day, the day when he could have gotten a free pass for only talking about race etc, in his speech at ebenezer church. he wrote an open letter addressing heterosexism.

first off, don't even try to pass "judeo-christian," when what you mean is "christian." that term is idiocy. it's just another way to erase difference under the banner of white christianity.

you need to get out of your binaried, preconceived thinking. religious does not equal conservative. atheist does not equal progressive. obama belongs to a strong progressive church. the school of new atheists almost all line up with a neo-conservative political platform and classically liberal economics.

i am a religious jew, and a progressive. my friends are atheist, agnostic and believers. the problem with the discourse surrounding religion in this country is that we stop at the words "religion" and "atheism." we don't look into what they mean. i have more in common with my agnostic best friend re: the meaning of life than i do with a number of orthodox jews.

the point you are making is imply replicating the problem.

"Why, after Geraldine Ferraro's comments, didn't Hillary Clinton stand up and deliver a speech on how she sees race in America?"

Comparing Ferraro's statements to the statements made by Wright is kind of like comparing a paper cut to having one's arm sawed off. This isn't tit for tat. These two events simply cannot be compared. This is the kind of comparison that Obama's campaign and the media have continually tried to draw because it deflects Obama's poor coverage (and his poor judgement).

If they make that false comparison enough, they figure people will start to associate the two things. Apparently, some people are swallowing it hook, line and sinker.

All politics aside, I think to answer your question, in part and of course this is my personal opinion - I certainly can't speak for the Clinton folks, is that there has been a great deal of debate about who can speak publicly about race in this country, even within the feminist movement. bell hooks and Linda Alcoff (among many other feminist theorists) write on the issud and the "Dangers of Speaking for Others" (Alcoff). I for one would love to be able to publicly talk about race in this country, but as a white woman, I don't feel it is my place to be the spokesperson on the subject, even when I really, really want to chime in! I recognize that I have benefited from my whiteness at the expense of people of color, as much as this saddens me. In recognizing my white privledge, I want a person of color, someone who has experienced racism first hand to be the one speaking about racism in this country, not someone who has either advertantly or inadvertantly benefited from it.

Comparing Ferraro's statements to the statements made by Wright is kind of like comparing a paper cut to having one's arm sawed off.

I agree, but I did like that Obama can see such comments come from the same place. Some of his supporters seem to be more understanding of Wright while simultanously accusing Ferraro of representing "Archie Bunker" (who, as I recall, wasn't very kind towards women either).

Obama has never been called a cunt or harrassed on the street so should he be addressing gender on behalf of his rival?

I don't think it's fair to hold someone accountable for what they haven't experienced firsthand. So reluctantly, I say "no." Although people would listen, it's somewhat ironic we would need him to get people to take sexism seriously.

I wonder....if Hillary gave a similar speech about sexism and gender issues in the US, would she be as lauded as a ground-breaker and praised by the national media the same way Obama is?

US Sexism and gender issue concerns: still going over like the proverbial fart in church.

ALB: but I think that is an important missing component of the discussion- white people (such as you and myself) who are willing to talk about race-specifically white privilege. If as white people we can talk publicly about this issue, we can seek to be park of a solution instead of part of the problem of perpetuation. Anyone else want to chime in on this?

On whites addressing race issues:

ALB, i understand where your coming from, and at the same time think there is a difference between claiming to know the experience of a person of color, and being able to speak openly and frankly about racism.

racism, both the "subtle" racism of today and the racist history of our nation, are facts and should be discussed. the legacy of racism, being our white privlidge and the disadvantages facing many communities of people of color, are also facts. i don't think for us to speak openly about these is appropriating voice, any more than it would be appropriating voice for a man to speak about the history of violence and discrimination against women.

the danger of not speaking is that we make race something that is not our responsibility, and ignoring race is part of the privlidge of being white here.

*i use people of color cause i don't like the term minority or oppressed, because of the connotations of "normal" that they are based in opposition to.*

This sums up my thoughts pretty well:
"Yay for Wright aggressively addressing white privilege! Boo for Wright playing lame oppression olympics and denying the oppression of women.

Yay for Obama for such a huge speech tackling race issues!
Boo for Obama shying away from really addressing white privilege and institutional racism."

But for a politician who doesn't want to get skewered, I think he's handling himself fairly well. Actually, I imagine that part of the reason Obama doesn't talk more frankly about sex at this point is for the same reason Clinton doesn't. Every voting person is affected pretty intimately by sexism in some way, and half of them gain from it. He wouldn't have spoken about race if he hadn't been "forced" to. If he was forced to speak about sexism (not sure how that could happen, but well...) he'd probably say some similar things...

I think part of the reason Obama can talk about this kind of stuff in this way, is because it makes him a little reminiscent of historical figures like MLK, who though considered a radical at the time, is now celebrated in schools as one of our great national historic figures.

There still is not really a feminist figure like that, that school-children are taught to know and admire. Hence, there really is yet no "right and institutionally-supported" way to talk about sexism. People are less likely to associate modern feminists with great historical figures.

(I couldn't figure out how to articulate this idea very well, but do you get the gist...?)

I am wondering why he gave a speech instead of answering reporters questions.

You know, Obama pretty much said that poor black people and poor white people have more in common than poor whites have with rich whites. He also pretty much identified the real enemy as the greedy rich -- people who are determined to take more and more and never give anything back to the rest of us.

That's a damn radical thing for a serious presidential candidate to say.

TheSoyMilkConspiracy, I LOVE you. Thank you for saying what I feel so much better than I could ever have.

Soymilk,

I think there's a big difference between saying this wasn't necessarily the forum for him to talk about gender and failing to demand that we have a national conversation about sexism. We need to have that conversation. But the controversy in this case was specifically over the "racism" of Rev. Wright's comments, and that's what Obama needed to address. I'd love to hear him speak out against sexism in the future and I think he ought to have done so more clearly before now, given some of the subtle sexism that's come from his camp and some of his supporters. But this wasn't the best speech for him to do address that issue.

diablaazul--

The first time I can think of when she said it quite loudly was at the 1/5 debate (3:25 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBGjuAd0GC8&feature=related)
This was the first time she said a statement like this from what I can recall, but after that she started saying it on the campaign trail rather than at larger events but in different variations--sometimes saying what she said at the debate, but sometimes more explicitly saying she represents change as a woman. Thank CNN's Ballot Bowl for me remembering her saying that in some of her stumps.

I agree that she has mentioned other reasons for being "an agent of change," even at that very debate. My issue is not with that. My issue is that Obama usually does not "play the race card" unless prompted to with a question of race v. gender or the historical race. H. Clinton, however, brings it up without being prompted. This portrays the candidates as being above race (Obama), but not always above gender OR race (H. Clinton).

That said, I do think that the issue of sexism in the campaign really needs to be addressed, preferably by more neutral voices in the campaign. The problem with the way that the Clinton campaign brings it up is that it really does come off as whiny, even to the people I know who are die-hard Clinton supporters. If she really addressed the issue in a candid, matter-of-fact way by using various examples and being completely honest, it would hold more weight. This might be easier for somebody outside of her campaign to bring up because she already is seen as a polarizing person. I really don't care who does it at this point though because there is an urgency to discuss this openly.

I feel that Hillary Clinton should have at least released a statement about Ferraro's comments. At the same time, if she had made a speech about 'race,' many people would have wondered aloud why she, a 'White' woman, felt she had the right or experience to address the issue.

Gender has been conspicuously absent from this election, which is obviously a shame!

I respect Barack Obama for speaking out, but why has he remained silent about Muslims? He is, of course, a Christian, but he has never to my knowledge defended Islam which is a religion that does not in and of itself breed terrorists.

Perhaps it would be political suicide to show support for Muslims at this time, but his silence on this issue is insulting to Muslims who practice in good faith around the world.

What bothers me is in the first few sentences. He talks about uniting America, but how is his campaign doing that? Sure it's uniting black and white people I guess, behind him, while dividing people who are democrats between him and Hilary in a "us and them" context, presenting the Clinton's as money-grubbing pigs who are in the pocket of lobbyist, as bad if not worse then the republicans. Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama has almost the same in terms of their platforms, why shouldn't they be united together in creating change like Kerry and Edwards? Why must the party we so divided? I also didn't like his comment about his children inheriting the legacy of being the descendants of slaves in America. Isn't there more of a legacy to being an African American then being the descendants of slaves? If his campaign is so positive, why not talk about the positive legacy of being an African American, like following the people of color before them in America who were not only the descendants of slaves, but also the descendants of some of the greatest musicians, inventors, scientists, writers and artist on this planet?

On the institutionally accepted feminist figures. The only ones I know of are the suffragettes. The problem is that some people like to think that sexism ended when white women got the vote. Wrongo! People admitted about racism in the 1900s because it was so obvious: lynchings/still couldn't vote, segregation on the books and such. MLK came along and gave white America its first acceptable black man to love, like was mentioned. Everyone still thinks he's great, even many republicans.
The problem is that the parallel/intersecting line of feminism was never accepted by the majority of males, regardless of race. Feminists are hairy/bra-burning/man-hating
/non-breeding/might refuse to have sex with you/takes your job/etc. In other words waaay to threatening (about half of those descriptors are true lolz). For a while there we almost had Gloria Steinem as an acceptable media FIGURE, but then she wrote that idiot article. HRC was also vying for that position, but look how much the institution HATES her. Surprisingly enough, I don't believe that any of the feminist figures who have approached 'acceptability' have ever been women of color. Gee, I wonder why that is.
Sigh, sorry for the length, this election has been such a wake up call for me, as we are fed such post-racial bs all through school.

that would be "too threatening"

seriously?

yes, this is a side path, but i gotta say... there are more NON-Judeo-Christian people in the world than those who follow ANY Judeo-Christian path (Judaism, Christiany or Islam). there are more Hindus, more Buddhists.

and while i quite get the plight of only ONE athiest in elected federal office...
the MUCH BIGGER plight is that there are NO OTHER RELIGIONS either.
no hindu. no buddhists. hell, no muslims. or pagans. or taoists

why do i keep finding people complaining at the lack of athiests, and not at the lack of everything else?

I'm sorry, were you responding to me? Because I don't recall ever mentioning religion. Who do you hear complaining about lack of atheists but not lack of anyone else?

Atheistwoman,

I am not sure I understand you. The right for black men to vote came BEFORE any woman. When women got the right to vote it was ALL women. Yes there was and is still racism AND sexism after either became law.

Abigail Adams, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Alice Paul, Alice Walker, or Pat Parker, if you are not familiar with any of these ladies it is because SEXISM keeps institutions from explaining that their fight was important.

Anyway the more I read Obama’s speech the more I like him. I just wish he could address some of the sexism that is coming from his own supporters. I mean how great would that be if he said something like, I can win the nomination without throwing sexism or racism into the mix?

Actually, I would love it if Hillary said the same thing. If she could just say something like if I lose the nomination based on my merit as a candidate and on not on my gender or race; then at least I know that I fought for what I believed in and at the end of the day to come short of victory on principle is at least a consolation for the soul.

I want the fist candidate to state something to that effect to be the next president, man or woman.

Many many blacks, male and female, were prevented from voting in this country well into mid 1900s due to Jim Crow. I am well aware of all of those women, I was referring to those accepted by the mainstream in a similar manner to MLK.

MLk wasn't accepted by the mainstream until a while after he died. He was hated by mainstream whites during his lifetime.

I hate the "black men got the right to vote first" discourse. It willfully ignores what that "right" meant in practice. What it meant was "you can vote during Reconstruction and after that we're going to abandon you, and you're going to have to work and fight for a hundred years to actually cast a vote." God knows that I don't minimize misogyny and sexism, but nobody ever turned fire hoses on white women in the 20th century because they were trying to go to the polls.

EG, good point about MLK.
It's frustrating that you should even have to say that you aren't minimizing misogyny.

EG,

“God knows that I don't minimize misogyny and sexism, but nobody ever turned fire hoses on white women in the 20th century because they were trying to go to the polls.�

I want you to know that I understand what you are saying. I did say that sexism and racism continues even after the right to vote existed. Remember that the right to vote for women came in the 1920’s. That is it. Women couldn’t even own property until the 1920’s either. During the 70’s and 80’s women were fighting to get the police to take domestic violence seriously. How many men know what it’s like to lose their name when they get married? White women may have never got the hose but some have been beaten, raped, and whatever, and though women are not slaves here, they are in other countries.

It sucks. Racism and sexism suck. They do not belong in this world. They are BOTH evil. Ask a girl born into Brothels in India, or just born in Saudi Arabia, or in Thailand how sexism affects them. There is no reason to dislike white feminists. I am proud that they fight at all. Some, *SOME*, may be misguided or outright wrong, but that is people. There is no perfect race of people. To generalize this as a what do white women know thing is kind of unfeeling to their concerns. I mean someone could say what does a black man know about what it means to be a Mexican woman? That is stupid. I don’t care as long as that black man cares about the well being of ALL PEOPLE and the same goes for a white woman.

I think this is the twisting and distorting that the right wing media wants from possible democratic voters. They want them at odds with each other. This is OUR moment. This is OUR time to have two historic candidates. It is now our responsibility to bring this damned election back to a celebration of this party and its diversity and NOT allow the MSM to make it an ugly shame. That is what they want. Divide and conquer. I have decided not to allow them to sway either my feminism or my desire to fight racism. However, I will not roll over when I see either. We need to address both without dismissing the other.

I agree. Which is why trying to reduce the complexities and various faces of injustice to one symbol, like the right to vote, is so inane.

To echo what others have said - this speech was about addressing the issue of Race and not gender. I don't think this speech was the right time to talk about Gender.

A few people have said they wished he put a couple of lines in about the suffering of women, but I have a feeling that if he did that then the people taking issue with him not addressing gender would say things like "What? he talked for 30 minutes about race and only 30 seconds about gender?"

Gender is as big and as complex topic as race, and deserves it's own speech - not to be tacked on as an afterthought to a speech on race.

Most people are lazy and dumb, a single speech on two issues as big and complex as Race and Gender would be way too much effort for most people to understand.

Also - it seems churlish to condem him for not talking about gender when none of the other candidates have really broached the subject either. Being critical at him for not mentioning it while ignoring Hillary not addressing the issue head on seems a bit harsh.

I thought I heard Obama speak about a deeper issue even than race itself. The question of how we handle the issue, how we discuss it (or don't), and how we treat those voicing views harshly contrary to our own. I heard him draw a clear distinction between views he disagrees with (Reverend Wright's, those who claim that blacks are responsible for the economic and social difficulties faced by whites) and the understandable anger and legitimate aspirations that lay behind those views (for full and genuine equality for African-Americans and for restoring the economic and social opportunities that are decreasing for most white people). I hear him saying that rather than silencing discussion of racist views and delegitimizing the holders of those views, that we should recognize the legitimate desires that underlay those views and engage people in terms of those legitimate desires. That we dial down the use of "gotcha's" to silence each other and start engaging each other.
I think this would be a huge change that would help us resume progress on the issues that have become intractable through the culture war.
I found the ordinariness and down-to-earth honesty of the speech very rare for someone on Obama's level, where the pressure to not offend anyone and the media pressure to stay within the bounds the media prescribes pushes very hard for blandness and cover-your-ass platitudes. And in doing so, I thought he said many things that go without saying for readers of this blog but that are never said in the national presidential campaign discourse.

In view of all the misogynistic shit Obama's campaign has pulled, he's the one with a reputation to disprove, so yes, we should be asking why he isn't addressing the gender issue. (And not in a "well, racism and sexism are *both* bad, so whatcha gonna do" way, either.)

I think the whole Obama campaign mindset towards women, though, was captured by Tracy Morgan's comments on SNL: "Bitch may be the new black, but black is the new president, bitch!" In other words - yeah, our movement is misogynistic, but we're winning, so shut up, *bitches*!

Yeah - and why should this bitch join your campaign, again?

Synonymous - Out of curiosity what is all the misogynistic shit he's pulled?

I'm not in the US so don't get full coverage of his campaign but did not have the impression he and his campaign were doing this.

As a Native American woman you don't hear much about Native Americans in the news in general. The other day I was speaking to a man who had Native heritage and he was very angry to the fact that in this country it is always a black/white issue. I am saddened by the fact that it is this way. It will be a miracle the day these disconnected politicians address Native Americans and let alone what happens to Native American woman in terms of violence and conquest on their bodies.

Indians Deserve Presidential Attention http://www.indianz.com/News/2008/007397.asp

Apology Long Overdue to Native People http://www.indianz.com/News/2008/007610.asp

Opinion: Apologizing to Indians but not meaning it http://www.indianz.com/News/2008/007507.asp

"Its a small world, you don't have to pay attention, its the reservation, the news don't give it a mention."~Jim Boyd~Small World

Synonymous: You said it.
Even that rant by Tracy Morgan shows the attitude towards women that many Obama supporters have.

Not only that, but even when Clinton had to deal with misogyny she was seen as whining or complaining. Actually even those two adjectives are commonly used against women when they speak up.

...and why on earth would Obama make a speech about race? Why would he not answer reporters questions on Friday when asked, like all the other candidates do? Is this what will happen now? Every time reporters have valid questions to ask Obama, he will give a speech?

Dedf-
The reason he doesn't talk to reporters is because they are agenda driven by a myriad of big spenders, none of which have a vested interest in any type of equality- only in the dollar. Some will have valid questions, but they would have been drowned out by the media which seeks to divide democrats, liberals and independents so that we are unprepared to take on McCain.

As for giving a speech on race now: his back was up against the wall. This discussion board has posted all the reasons he did not address gender, and all the reasons Hillary has not done it either.

I don't think Obama's campaign is without its flaws, and I do not wish to dismiss the fact that mysoginistic words and acts have been a part of it, but it is my opinion that pitting Hillary and Obama against each other as representatives of racism and sexism does McCain more good than it does in actually progressing America.

That said, I wish there were a moment when sexism could be so frankly discussed, but to be quite honest I worry Obama's speech is too much for white America to deal with, just as sexism would be for the patriarchy and its proponents. As many have mentioned, Hillary would be perceived as whiney if she gave this speech.

Oh for the love of cod, a person takes the risk of making an empathetic and possibly historic speech on Race and our response is to complain that he didn't talk about our oppression?

Let's have some perspective! Sexism, racism (including racism against ethnic groups he didn't mention), homophobia, transphobia, nationalism, poverty, religious persecution...oppression takes many, ugly forms.

Why can't we discuss ONE without people in the peanut gallery complaining that we didn't discuss all forms of oppression. How about we take two seconds to appreciate that someone said SOMETHING positive and empathetic that just might, possibly make things just the tiniest bit better?

Or does our (seeming) partisanship run that deep?

What would be fascinating to have is a discussion of sexism in the black community. Off topic a skeech, but important IMHO...

OR, why didn't Hillary give a speech about race AND gender in America? That's the one I'm waiting for.

The question I have is why didn't Obama address gender in his speech that seemed to be about opression? While I think Obama would be a great president (much MUCH better than McCain!)I'm starting to worry that we are going to have another 4 years of women's rights being overlooked.

P.S.

TheSoyMilkConspiracy,

Kudos.

I won't direct this at any one in particular because I don't mean to be rude. But, generally speaking, maybe comments express (certainly valid, but) what I believe wrongheaded sentiments about the two Democrat candidates. The contentions, which I am referring to, have argued that Obama and Hillary are not doing enough to combat race and sex.

I agree that, in purely scorecard terms, their positions on abortion-rights, homosexual-rights, women's and colored peoples' rights, and so forth are good, but NOT STRONG ENOUGH. In an ideal world, I would like a candidate who argues for complete gender and racial equality and who would stand up fearlessly against the pro-life lobby to preserve the most important fundamental freedom to women that this country has been fortunate to achieve.

That said, I would like to (perhaps ironically) see and hear LESS of Obama and Hillary talking about race and sex and inequality for the simple, practical reason that those have been shown to turn off many voters. So many times liberals in this country who are rightfully upset with conservative hegemony try to behave extremely with thoughts of grandeur and expectations that if we make ourselves heard, we'll be doing what's right. That is noble, but in my opinion, it would be smartest for Obama and Hillary to rise above divisive issues in the election season. Then, when one of them is elected (let's be honest, they're both great and have the same positions, so let's stop fighting over who is a hair better than whom), we can move the country is small but steady steps to the center and eventually the left. The country then will trust Democrats because they won't seem extreme and liberals can have our agenda implemented over time. This, in my opinion, will be the best way.

I thought I heard Obama speak about a deeper issue even than race itself. The question of how we handle the issue, how we discuss it (or don't), and how we treat those voicing views harshly contrary to our own.

I heard that too, Jessica. It's what just blew me away about this speech. It was a total contextural switcharoo...politicians don't actually talk about engaging things directly, they use rhetoric that we're all forced to interpret as being *generally* in the right direction, but there is no real investigation of the issues, no leadership regarding the value of that enterprise for everyone.

I found the ordinariness and down-to-earth honesty of the speech very rare for someone on Obama's level, where the pressure to not offend anyone and the media pressure to stay within the bounds the media prescribes pushes very hard for blandness and cover-your-ass platitudes.

YES. I found it so, so shocking. I really don't get how anyone could miss that this is why he's connecting with so many people, not because he's black, not because of kool-aid, but because he seems to really believe in people's capacities and acts accordingly. People like feeling respected, therefore, people like Obama when he seems to respectfully engage them this way. This speech gave America a trememdous amount of credit (for being intelligent, for being able to handle conflicting ideas, to empathize with the other, for having the honest desire to change themselves). That is an amazing turn from "don't worry, I'll scratch your back, this other person is a danger to you" exclusively self-interested, oversimplified politics we're used to. I loved the way he connected every "special interest" together as having a common purpose: justice and resources for themselves and/or their families. The idea is that your self interest connects you with another person, it doesn't separate them from you. We all know this, but having someone SAY it for the whole country to hear is huge. Say it again and again, and the cultural norm of what's said in public will change.

Things like black communities not having generations of weath to pass on because of segregationist policies...did someone actually SAY that on TV? Someone who could be president in a year? I was blinking in disbelief and cheering alternately. That "legacy" idea applies across the board with equity politics, even if he didn't talk about sexism directly (I did note, however, that he said "brother's keeper" and then said "sister's keeper" right after, to both call into view the previously-accepted sexism of the language, and bring women into focus, specifically--it is a little weird that the consciousness raising expression was "keeper", though, but at least it's equal opportunity keeping,I guess? And clearly he values both the responsibility of "keeping" one another, and being kept...).

It will take years of focused effort and real thinking by LOTS of people (not just elected officials) regarding the dynamics of situations like the above (and the ways in which sexist institutions and patriarchal expectations of women still affect the lack of representation in some fields or situations, and the over-representation in others, even when current laws protect us from overt discrimination and abuse) before they're corrected...and the beginning of consciousness raising is public discourse like this. So a speech like this really is change. This is not a promise or rhetoric of change. He changed the discourse with one speech. No one else running could, or would think of, doing that. And I think that's why he is where he is.

I thought it was ridiculous that the media even made a big deal about Obama's ex-pastor's speech, the one that pretty much caused this speech... Black people are oppressed in America? No kidding! America is going to hell for it? Well, I don't know about that, I'm not religious...
but when on the Republican side there were a couple of very fundamentalist Christians running, whose church leaders PROBABLY said all kinds of horrible (and untrue) things about groups, for example queers... but nobody got pissed off about that, because ... well, I don't know why. But they didn't, and I think it's pretty dumb.
I feel like this is just another way to make Obama seem 'foreign' and 'extreme' and 'other', and to generally vilify him.
America does treat Blacks differently, and it sucks. Yeah, women too, and it also sucks. I'd rather see a president in power who recognizes inequity than one who thinks America is jim-dandy the way it is... mind you I don't live there so maybe it doesn't matter.

The thing is, Clinton has been speaking about race in this campaign. Just like she's been laying out sophisticated policy proposals about Iraq, the subprime mortgage crisis, and universal healthcare. But our political discourse is more interested in making this a personality fight than a dialogue about substantice positions. We live in America.

There are many examples of Clinton bringing up race and the complex racial history in the US during this campaign and in her lifetime of work -- for the Children's Defense Fund, working to get healthcare for all those kids in Arkansas. Go to her web site as Obama fans would say.

Probably the biggest "speech" Clinton gave on racial injustice in the US was before the Ferraro flap, when she gave a very lengthy speech at the State of the Black Union before a somewhat hostile audience. This is a setting that Obama avoided for fear of his campaign becoming all about race, the pundits presume.

You gotta be fuckin' kidding me...

Feminists are upset because the Black man didn't address their concerns.

Seriously???

This must be a Twilight Zone because for the damn longest, White feminists didn't - and some still continue to - refuse to address the concerns of Black women.

Am I the only one who remembers this?

Really??

I'd personally love to see Hillary give a speech on gender issues that is as powerful, as potentially paradigm-shifting, as Obama's speech on race.

Unfortunately, I don't think she's got it in her.

I look forward to the time when a feminist leader of that caliber appears - but it hasn't happened yet.

Ask a girl born into Brothels in India, or just born in Saudi Arabia, or in Thailand how sexism affects them. There is no reason to dislike white feminists. I am proud that they fight at all. Some, *SOME*, may be misguided or outright wrong, but that is people. There is no perfect race of people. To generalize this as a what do white women know thing is kind of unfeeling to their concerns. I mean someone could say what does a black man know about what it means to be a Mexican woman? That is stupid. I don’t care as long as that black man cares about the well being of ALL PEOPLE and the same goes for a white woman.

Smartorange, this is awesome.

Unfortunately, I don't think she's got it in her.

Lear, Clinton is the one who must address this herself, yet people at best just aren't interested, or at worst badmouthing a speech that hasn't even happened. I believe she could do this with eloquence, but clearly people have already made up their minds otherwise.

Lear, Clinton is the one who must address this herself, yet people at best just aren't interested, or at worst badmouthing a speech that hasn't even happened. I believe she could do this with eloquence, but clearly people have already made up their minds otherwise.

Personally, I'm still keeping my mind & ears open. Perhaps she will yet pull it off.

What I find disturbing in this thread is the suggestion that the burden of addressing gender as well as race should fall on Obama.

Thank you, everyone who pointed out that for those of us who recognize that institutional racism does exist in this country, the only really offensive thing that Rev. Wright implied was that Clinton doesn't know what discrimination is. Since Wright brought up the issue of sexism by dismissing it, and since Obama refuted almost every point Wright made in the youtube videos and delivered a strong "Racism in the US 101" lesson, and since most of the commenters here agree that racism against Africa-Americans in the US has always been bolstered by and bolstered misogyny, it isn't too much to expect Obama to point that out.

But what's making me question my support for Obama more is this: "a profoundly distorted view... that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam." Not only does this suggest that Obama did indeed have time to take up the "burden" of addressing issues other than racism in the US,unless I'm reading it wrong, it's also a disturbing statement of the one-sided blaming that's he's supposedly coming out against in this speech. Anyone else wonder what was up with this bit?

Athiestwoman:

i didn't even look to see the last 10 or so posts before mine :) it was not a comment directed to you or about you; there 2 or 3 comments about religion and the lack of athiests and how all politicians must fit into a Judeo-Christian framework, etc, and had nothing to do with either the thread or your post. i'm very sorry for not seeing your posting handle earlier, i would have probably phrased it differently if i had.

This post is kind of frustrating to me, because I think that Obama makes it very clear that "people of color are not the only people who deal with issues of race in this country." To me, that's the entirety of his speech- that ALL of our fates our bound together as one and that we must address this anger and hostility that divides us in order to combat social injustices. Was anybody else reminded of Audre Lorde's "The Uses of Anger?" This wasn't a politician speaking.

Lear:"I look forward to the time when a feminist leader of that caliber [obama]appears - but it hasn't happened yet."

Why set your sights so low?

@Lear

The "burden of addressing gender" falls on Obama because of Wright's ridiculous implication that white women don't understand oppression. I don't think anyone was expecting him not to focus on black/white race relations, but aside from a word or two, he completely glossed over not only sexism but also the racism experienced by millions of nonwhite americans who don't happen to be black.

This was not the courageous speech about race that I was hoping for. This was a desperate attempt to save his political butt from the fire. I'm glad he mentioned crumbling schools, but it would have been truly brave to have outlined the many other ways that people of all races are discriminated against today.

It would have been astoundingly courageous if he had tried to link racism and sexism and had condemned both the racism sometimes expressed by Hillary supporters and the misogyny sometimes expressed by his own supporters. Although, I admit that's probably expecting a little too much even for this bold, change making visionary.

Saying that Jim Crow and slavery have resulted in lasting inequalities is not shocking or brave. Trying to equate twenty years of Wright's words to a couple of Feraro's sentences is not noble or honest. And choosing to attend Wright's church for almost two decades and then having the audacity to ask US to move past divisiveness and racism is insulting, as is his implication that those who don't vote for him support the kind of divisive ideology that he has chosen to expose his children to their entire lives.

The structure of the speech is fine, the speechwriter did his or her job well. The delivery was excellent as expected. But the content was severely lacking. Barack Obama is just another smooth-talking politician trying to placate both sides at once and as many people are starting to realize, he will not win the general election.