No Black woman, or any woman of color, that I know has the luxury of "pretending that race and gender are not there." The silly thing about all these "gender bias worse than race bias" comments is that they ignore that we are not talking, with HRC, of a "woman of any color" but of a *White* woman. To ignore the privileges HRC has received based on her race is historically inaccurate at best and calculatingly racist at best. How many "women of any (other than White) color," for example in the history of the USA been able to launch a career of any kind from being a former First Lady?

I say "calculatingly" because it is quite possible that these remarks are an insidious tactic meant to capitalize on long-standing fears, something that has been used for centuries to cleave poor, working class, and middle income Whites from poor, working class, and middle income non-Whites: "You [White person] are not progressing--not because of Us--but because of Those People taking all of your [jobs/educational spots/women/whatever]."

However, Ms. Ferraro did not stop at invoking this line of thinking but went one step further by voicing the classic line "I am being discriminated against because I am White." ("Racism without racists," indeed.)

Finally, I wonder how folks who have been so sure that people will accept Black men before White women explain the number of Black male governors compared to White female ones, Black male senators compared to White female ones.

(Or, Ms. Ferraro, Black male VP running mates compared to White female ones...)

Really. This whole line of comparison has really gone from the ridiculous to the potentially dangerous. But it seems we are unable to have truly important discussion of intersections among race, gender, class, orientation, and other identities without playing these tired games.

Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast

Hi PunditMom,

I respectfully disagree with your assessment that the reaction to Ferraro and Steinem's comments prove the ferocity of racism and sexism in this country. Race and gender have been discussed ad nauseam throughout this campaign, usually without historical context. And Ferraro and Steinem's contributions to that conversations are particularly disturbing because as trailblazing women, they should know better.

Let me start with this issue of race, and Obama's support among black voters. Remember that throughout much of 2007, the drumbeat was that Obama might not be "black enough" to win black voters over. Here's Time magazine, Jan. 23, 2007, asking, Can Obama count on the Black Vote?:

Much of Obama's overall appeal stems from his image as practically a post-racial politician. Not only does he have a mixed-race background, with a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya, but his rhetoric, most notably his 2004 Democratic National Convention speech, emphasizes the importance of Americans moving beyond political, religious and racial differences. He rarely makes explicit appeals based on his race the way Jackson did. " A lot of black people aren't ready to get beyond race, because race puts them in the situation they're in," said Ron Walters, a professor at the University of Maryland who worked on Jesse Jackson's Presidential runs. "But many whites want to get beyond the past, they want to support a black person who doesn't raise the past and in fact gives them absolution from the past."

It was such an open question that The Nation ran an item when a poll appeared showing that black voters were favorably disposed toward both Obama AND Clinton.

The tide did not turn for Obama with black voters until South Carolina. The Nation observed in December, 2007:

With African-Americans likely to make up a majority of primary voters on the Democratic side, South Carolina's contest is as close to a "black primary" as we're going to get in 2008--the only time in the entire campaign, almost certainly, when Democrats will be fighting all-out for African-American votes. Clinton's support among African-Americans, largely thanks to her husband's popularity, proved surprisingly strong at first, as did her smooth, state-of-the-art machine politics; as late as September, a CNN poll gave her a stunning 57 percent of the black vote here, to Obama's paltry 33. That would deal a death blow to Obama's chances, not only here but in the February 5 primaries, especially in Alabama and Georgia, where large numbers of black voters are weighing their choices--and watching South Carolina.

I could go on, but the record shows that the black vote was divided before South Carolina, and a good argument can be made that black voters were energized byObama's strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire, as well as high-profile supporters such as Oprah Winfrey and alienated by remarks by people associated with the Clinton campaign such as Bill Shaheen and Bob Johnson.

Now, let's talk about Gloria Steinem, whom I have read with great respect for more than 30 years, until now. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend that you check out this discussion between Ms. Steinem and Prof. Melissa Harris-Lacewell. For now, I will briefly make two points:

1. Steinem is right to note that race and gender are intersecting oppressions. She is also right to note that men of color benefit by being men. However, she fails to acknowledge the gendered baggage that is particularly attached to black men. This is part of what is behind the anxiety that many African Americans have that Obama will be assassinated if he actually ascends to the Presidency. Reportedly, it's what kept Gen. Colin Powell from even trying.

2. Steinem's argument that black men got the vote 50 years before women of any color is ahistorical and painfully simplistic. She knows full well that black men's voting rights were systematically stripped from them in the decades right after the end of the Civil War. She says that she believes that violence would have been mitigated had the coalition of abolitionists and suffragists held together, and that black men such as Frederick Douglass were ardent advocates of women's rights. She knows, too, that some leaders of the women's suffrage movement, most notably, Alice Paul, actively worked to exclude black women from leadership roles in the National Women's Party. (You can read some of the primary source documents here.)

Finally, it pains me that Steinem, who is well versed in the complex and painful history of these issues, would present her argument in such a polarizing way.

Now, let's talk about Geraldine Ferraro, for whom I voted in 1984. She was in her third term in the House of Representatives when she was plucked from obscurity to run with Walter Mondale. That had been her first elective office. Before that, she had been an assistant district attorney and a lawyer in private practice.

She did not have the record of community service that either Clinton or Obama have. She did not have the international experience or exposure that either Obama or Clinton have, apart from a diplomatic mission to Nicaragua.

This is the person who is saying that Barack Obama's appeal is solely racial, as if his experience, political skills, and positions on the issues count for nothing. In 1988, she echoed Ronald Reagan by saying, "If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race." Never mind that Jackson had a history of coalition-building around populist issues that connected with hard-pressed Midwestern farmers as well as struggling urban voters, for all of the controversy and criticism he also engendered.

I was dumbfounded and disappointed by Ferraro's remarks. For her to then compound the problem by claiming that she was being attacked because she is white is beyond ridiculous.

I have said that I was undecided between Clinton and Obama. I ended up voting for Obama in the New Jersey primary, although I am no fawning acolyte. It is my intention to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election, should she be the nominee.

I have no problems discussing race and gender. I do think that Clinton has been hit by vicious sexism, although I still don't know what Elisa was referring to in an earlier comment when she was

"offended by things that either Obama himself or his staff (paid and unpaid) have said because he is totally capitalizing on the fact that this is still a sexist nation and because, worst sin of all, he is capitalizing on Republican talking points."

The sexism I've seen has been that stupid nutcracker doll, the complete dismissal of her experience as First Lady (although FactCheck.org has noted that Clinton oversold her foreign policy experience), and the big deal that has been made about her tearing up just before two important primaries. Steinem said that like Obama, Clinton's life has been threatened, and I can believe that. Clearly, everyone should expect these kinds of sexist acts to be rejected and condemned.

We need people like Ferraro and Steinem to stand as voices of integrity on these issues. Unfortunately, they have not.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

It's definitely better to talk about issues of race and gender. Race has been brought up repeatedly by the Clinton campaign. And as a black woman listening to the discussion, I keep thinking about the poem by by Sojourner Truth, "Aint I A Woman." When people say "woman" the assumption is usually about a "white" woman.

I've even noticed it on SNL's sketch with Tina Fey. Her statement that "bitch is the new black" was offensive to me on many levels. I don't like the word bitch. I seldom use it and don't like to be called it. And there was certainly a double meaning to the word "black" in this context. It wasn't just about a little black dress.

Anali's First Amendment

Hey Kim. I found his "tea party" comment sexist. I found his references to how she behaves when she's "feeling down" to be sexist. He suddenly started using the "polarizing figure" language somewhat recently in the campaign and that is a total Republican talking point. Those are just the three that most immediately pop into my mind.

But as I made the point in my blog: none of it is incredibly vicious, I don't freak out about it; it wouldn't make me not vote for him in the general election should he win the nomination, I just don't like it. I'm just pointing out that he is not "above the fray" from my view...which is a position he tries stake out.

Elisa Camahort
BlogHer
elisa@blogher.org

"...correct and insulting all at the same time."

Wish I had said it so concisely.

Mom-101
Cool Mom Picks.com

Race & Gender should most definitely be discussed. I think the problem arises when we try to convince ourselves that our country has moved past this issue and then it takes something very divisive (OJ anyone?) to reopen the wounds.

Getting into a tit-for-tat about which plight, racism or sexism, is worse is just a waste of time. Until we realize that most 'isms' are inextricably connected, we won't ever reach that mystical, magical place of togetherness.

~~
Gimme Love: http://theprisonerswife.blogspot.com

Lest we get distracted by the call-girls, NY now has the first legally disabled governor in the US (he's legally blind.) He's also black and a gay-rights supporter. If we take the opportunity, we can look at the role of people with disabilities in our country.

Here's my lame humor attempt at starting the dialog on my JUST CAUSE blog.

But yes, i ALWAYS think it's best to talk about it. It's real..... Pretending we're all the same doesn't help anyone.

___________
Alyssa Royse
JUST CAUSE
make some good news!
www.JustCauseIt.com