What’s funny about her piece in the Globe is that its titled “Healing the wounds from Democrats’ sexism”. Then you read it, and all it seems aimed at doing is opening those wounds deeper. I mean getting Harvard’s Shorenstein Center to study how sexism stole the election from Clinton will contribute to healing how exactly? And c’mon, didn’t Tina Fey already prove that was true so what more could a Harvard study say about it.
And Ferraro goes on to claim that Reagan Democrats’ antipathy to Barack is a response to the reverse racism demonstrated by his campaign (towards her no doubt). So I guess when a candidate responds to a bone-headed, racially-provocative charge by pointing out that the comment is bone-headed and racially-provocative, its reverse racism now. So that means that if my wife was called a bimbo and responded to that by slight by pointing out that calling her a bimbo was sexist, her response would be reverse sexism. That follow? Nice logic Geraldine – just the type of logic that makes me increasingly pleased you never did actually get one heart beat away from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
But Ferraro isn’t the only one who places the burden of healing our inter-party divisions primarily on Obama – as if all the wounds opened up in this race are his alone to close, and even as she throws more lighter fluid on the coals. Paul Krugman, whose economic viewpoints I continue to respect, laid this challenge before Obama and his supporters in his most recent NYT column:
Mrs. Clinton needs to do her part: she needs to be careful not to act as a spoiler during what’s left of the primary, she needs to bow out gracefully if, as seems almost certain, Mr. Obama receives the nod, and she needs to campaign strongly for the nominee once the convention is over. She has said she’ll do that, and there’s no reason to believe that she doesn’t mean it.
But mainly it’s up to Mr. Obama to deliver the unity he has always promised – starting with his own party.
Now while I very much agree that Obama has to do all he can to bring the party together (why wouldn’t he want that), I tend to agree with Howard Dean, who said the most important person in bringing the party together will be the losing candidate in this race. And frankly, while Krugman neatly says that Hillary should be campaigning for Obama only after the late August convention, I’d much prefer to see her stumping for him from June 5th. If she wants us to win this thing, then that is what she’ll do. August is much too late. And as for bowing out gracefully, don’t think Hillary is taking your advice Paul. Comparing Florida’s delegate fight to the civil rights movement doesn’t seem particularly graceful if you ask me.
The fact is, ultimately, coming together is a two-way street. Fanning the flames of division further, as Ferraro is doing; using Florida and Michigan to stoke up folks to believe that in some way this race has been stolen, as Clinton is doing; and continuing to point out Obama’s white working class problems (as if Obama is the first Democrat to struggle with this group), instead of thinking about strategies to ameliorate them, as Krugman and many others are doing; is not in any of our interests.
The divisions this campaign has unearthed are nothing new and very real of course, but they are also not fixed in stone – to say they are would verify Rev. Wright’s view of America as irredemable, something campaign 2008, with its two historic candidacies serves to disprove not substantiate. It is within all our gift (Obama, Clinton and all their supporters) to ensure that the things that unite us (and it is amazing the policy consensus among Democrats today) are more prominent going forward then the superficial distractions that we are allowing to keep us apart. The history of racism and sexism in America is too important to be used as an excuse to blow this race or turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy for defeat. Even you Geraldine, a ceiling-breaker yourself in your times, must believe that.
I’ll be upset about Ferraro if Obama even pretends to be upset about Michale Pfleger. Instead we get another helping of “unity means never having to say you’re sorry”.
Sab, you’re not even trying.
<
p>What would you have him say? Never mind, nothing will ever be good enough for you anyway.
Some or all of the following:
<
p>
<
p>In other words, act like a winner.
<
p>But then again, who am I to mess with the tradition of lecturing then dismissing anybody who questions Obama? Way easier then engaging them.
Tell people they should take sexism just as seriously as we take racism.
you fan the flames. You are part of it wittingly or unwittingly. I have a good friend who has worked as a grassroots activist for years (Gore, Reich, Dean, Deval). She told me about going down to Texas to work on Hillary’s campaign. She was heckled with sexist comments by Barack’s people. She has told me flat out that she will be voting for McCain if Barack wins (which he hasn’t)because she cannot bring herself to vote for a Democratic candidate who would allow or condone that type of viciousness. I believe her. I tried to talk her out of it, and it is just not going to happen. I think the phrase is cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. Trying to minimize the issue by attacking Ferraro’s perspective ain’t gonna make it go away, and there’s far more than what the media has been reporting.
I look forward to you making the same comment on this diary here or this diary here. Or is it only Obama’s supporters who are fanning the flames?
Wook – first you accused me of only writing about gender, which was false. Then I write about a member of the media “channeling” Obama – a woman who has written extensively about women’s issues “using” the Senator’s voice. Although I gave an opinion, I thought it was rather toned down and certainly no where near flame level. Goodman’s column wasn’t impressive and adds to the impression that the media is in the tank with him. And THEN I wrote about the less than inclusive, hardball tactics by Senator Obama to keep his oponents off the ballot during his first campaign – which is at odds with the current message of hope and unity. Very factual and backed up by CNN. Flames? Not so…barely a campfire.
At this point, I really don’t understand the negative posts by either camp. What good is it going to do? I only see it reinforcing the sore feelings and making it even harder to get us unified for the general election. Whatever is going to happen in Washington Saturday, in the last primaries, and in the minds of the superdelegates isn’t going to be affected one iota by what any of us write here on BMG.
<
p>So my question, not just to J4A, but everyone who is still writing the negative diaries and comments: Why? What good end result are you trying to achieve?
I can’t say it any more eloquently than Jasiu just did, but what is the point of these topics? What do you ultimately want to hear?
<
p>Yes, the Goodman diary was relatively tame, but you’re still implying that the media is coddling Obama at the expense of your candidate. That’s such a tired road. I was going to reply to your post to add that I’ve seen Jacoby, McGrory and even Shaughnessy write articles in the Globe “channeling” one public figure or another, but I just didn’t want to get into it with you. Nothing productive can come of it.
<
p>And your other post is making Obama look like some sort of cut-throat when it’s really not that simple and you know that. “Less than inclusive, hardball tactics.” In other words, you want to rehash the party rules debate regarding MI and FL, when they’ve been beaten to death around here.
<
p>I have made a point to try and avoid these baiting topics the last few weeks because I think the people in both “camps” who keep posting them have less interest in winning the White House than they do the argument.
you’re “tired” Wook. Isn’t everyone?
<
p>But the reason I posted the CNN bit about the hardball tactics in Chicago is that a) it’s true, b)I hadn’t known that before and thought other people might find it interesting and c) it is at complete odds with the marketing of Senator Obama.
<
p>So why is it such a bad thing to know the truth? And why isn’t it a valid point to make about the Senator? God knows my candidate has been sliced and diced on everything from her hair to her laugh to her clothes- but given my framing of the issue (without the vitriol, and very factual) this is barely a scratch….so it seems like an over-response on your part.
<
p>Do you really want the rest of us to pretend he walks on water? The man is not the uniter you’ve claimed. He’s engaged is some very “interesting” campaign strategies in the past, and it was reported in CNN….not some right wing wackjob blog. What’s not so simple about keeping people from counting by using every strategy and technicality possible to do so? And why isn’t it valid to point out the remarkable similiarities in this campaign?
<
p>Inclusive? My great aunt Fanny. You’ve accused me of the overplaying the gender card, and now I’m playing another one – the hypocrisy card, and still, you discount it. There’s no pleasing ya, Wook.
<
p>
and I’m at the point where I am terrified of the outcome. I do think there’s been an imbalance of perspectives both in the media and on the blogs. I can understand the urge to post alternative perspectives. Skepticism is a very valuable thing to hold on to in campaigns and politics.
but voting for McCain just makes no sense at all. I don’t care how upset she is, if your friend votes for McCain, then she is voting against everything that Clinton stands for. How can she do that and still call herself a Democrat?
People don’t like to be used or abused. Sometimes voting against a candidate is about sending a message that bad behavior won’t be tolerated.
“I am so bitter and angry that I will undermine the best interests of other people like me to make a point”?
<
p>And voting is secret, so no one will no whether or not any given vote came from a disgruntled Clinton supporter or a Republican.
<
p>Furthermore, I know that Obama volunteers have been heckled by Clinton supporters. Would you expect them to vote for McCain if Clinton was the nominee?
<
p>The unfortunate fact is that both Clinton and Obama have some obnoxious (or worse) supporters, but I am sure that Obama and Clinton themselves in no way condone that kind of behavior. For the good of the party, or at least for the good of what the party is supposed to stand for, we should all try to put incidents like that behind us and come together to defeat another disastrous Republican presidency. Anyone who works against that goal is no Democrat, regardless of their motivation.
If McCain wins, the only message that will be sent is that we were just kidding, the last eight years really haven’t been that bad, carry on with the status quo.
Obama that he had better pay attention to the millions of people who supported and voted for Hillary Clinton. (BTW, I think if she is not going to vote for Obama, she should write in Hillary Clinton’s name.)
and I am sure that Clinton is perfectly well aware that if she somehow becomes the nominee she will have even more work to do to patch things up with Obama supporters. I have full confidence that whoever is the nominee will work very hard to make their opponent’s supporters feel welcome.
<
p>I respect this person. Not acknowledging the feelings expressed or arguing about their validity is only going to cause alienation. That’s a message that everyone should be listening to.
Clinton supporters should be willing to acknowledge the validity of the feelings of some Obama supporters who believe that Clinton’s campaign is full of venom and racism. I don’t see that happening so far.
<
p>
are Obama supporters. Not one has mentioned to me that Hillary people were hurling racist invectives at them.
Do you think your friends form a representative sample of all Obama supporters throughout the country? There are plenty of stories from Obama supporters on blogs describing bad treatment at the hands of Clinton supporters.
<
p>
and it would be nice if you responded to what I actually said instead of just writing about how some friend of yours took crap from some unknown Obama people.
<
p>1) Don’t hold Obama accountable for things done by some random Texan Obama supporters. A few assholes does not make the candidate. Judge the candidate and not his supporters.
<
p>I for one certainly am not holding Clinton accountable for the lunacy of Ferraro. I think what Ferraro and others are doing in ginning up gender-based turmoil beyond what is reasonable against Obama is detracting from Clinton’s amazing race. As Maureen Dowd and Doris Kearns Goodwin have argued, this resentment by Ferraro and Co. only serves to take away from what Clinton has achieved, not the other way around.
<
p>2) You keep saying that we have to understand what Clinton people are going through. That we alienate them by criticizing their views. Maybe so, but when Ferraro writes a very public article intended to hurt Obama and continue to divide us, I feel it is fair game to point out the lameness of her arguments.
<
p>I don’t see why you should take it personally. Instead, maybe you should respond to my post by pointing out where you think Ferraro is right. The fact that you didn’t do that, and instead gave the anecdote about some bad behavior by some Obama folks in Texas, leaves me to believe that you either don’t agree with Ferraro, or if you do, can’t make a compelling case.
<
p>I have posted very complimentary things about Clinton but no one reads those I guess. She is so much better than the too often wallowing folks who are holding her standard. She really deserves better.
do you? I agree with every point that Geraldine Ferraro made. She’s 100% accurate. You are in so deep, you can’t see the forest for the trees. If you yell loudly and frequently enough, that will make the problems go away. Right? Your categorization of Ferraro’s article as designed to “hurt Obama” is just another slap in the face to my friend. I get it, too bad there are so many like you who don’t.
When Geraldine wrote:
<
p>
<
p>She could have been referring to how you just responded to my comments. Dismissive and a full frontal attack. Nice job in making her point. I’m done.
who should be lecturing anybody about denigrating the messenger.
<
p>Let’s remember, she opened her big mouth in saying that Obama was only where he was because he was black – which is patently ridiculous. That was a racially-provocative remark no? And you’re telling me I have to listen to her rants about sexism after she made comments like that and then proceeded to blame those who found them out of line for being sexist. Her credibility is zilch, zippo, nada when it comes to these issues.
<
p>And I would think people who actually care about sexism, as you proclaim to, would throw Ferraro under the bus as someone who is willing to fan the flames of intolerance. Sexism and racism are close cousins from the same family tree of bigotry. I don’t think we should tolerate either of them.
<
p>Neither Obama or Clinton are sexist or racist. We all know that. So let’s just cut the crap and beat a party which tolerates both.
was not intended to hurt Obama in any way. Sure. Because
insinuating that he practiced in racism and sexism is really helpful.
<
p>So you agree with Ferraro that the Obama campaign accuses anybody who criticizes him (and who is white) of being a racist? Because if you agree with that then you are as wacky as she is.
<
p>
We don’t have a nominee yet. There is a lot of time between now and the Convention and many things can happen. Why not let things play out for a while. In the meantime, as long as people make reasonable arguments what’s wrong with debate. The problem, of course, is that what seems like reason to a Clinton supporter seems absurd to the Obamacans, and vice versa, or so it seems!
He made one about racism when he had to. I think the reason so many women are angry and thinking about writing in HRC’s name on the ballot in November if she is not the party’s nominee, is the fact that there has been total a lack of outrage expressed by people like Obama and Howard Dean over the overwhelming overt sexism that has been exhibited in this race; certainly not anything close to the outrage that has been expressed over comments that were not racist until taken out of context or spun a certain way. That is troubling to a lot of women.
<
p>The Geraldino Ferraro op ed piece is pointing out the problems that Obama will face if he gets the party’s nomination. Being nasty about the messenger is not going to make those problems go away.
<
p>To many women, the Harvard report sounds like a good idea. Here is what Harvard is being asked to study:
Its purpose will not be, as you put it,
Although some people feel (and I am one of them) that the Obama campaign used false charges of racism to gain an advantage in the primary races, the first question being asked is not important for the future of women in the political process, but the other two questions are. I hope Harvard agrees to do the study to answer these two questions and I hope it has the support of the Democratic party.
<
p>
If he were to make such a speech while Clinton is still running aggressively against him, her campaign would probably do their best to criticize it, which would greatly reduce its impact. There is no question that Obama will need the backing of Clinton’s supporters and women in general and will need to do his best to reach out and unify the party, but it is very difficult to do this while Clinton is still trying to drive her supporters away from Obama. So when he gives the speech you are asking for, Clinton will be standing next to him and cheering him on.
<
p>I think there is no question that Clinton has suffered from some sexism in this campaign, most obviously from cable news political commentators. It is not all that clear to what degree that has actually hurt her campaign, nor is it at all clear that more people have not voted for Clinton because she is a woman than have not voted for Obama because he is black. Clinton started out this campaign leading Obama by quite a lot in all polls, so I don’t know how you explain the change from then to now by “sexism” unless you believe that millions of voters just became sexist within the last 9 months or so.
How sad and disappointing. The excuse that Hillary Clinton would critcize it if he did, quite frankly, is a little lame. And is there any support for the nonsensical statement, “Clinton is still trying to drive her supporters away from Obama.” Her supporters are her supporters. Why would they be supporting Obama too? There is still a contest on. Or are Obama supporters now complaining that Hillary Clinton even has supporters?
<
p>I never said that I thought the sexism hurt Hillary Clinton in the polls, although I am sure there are some people that did not vote for her because she is a woman. Rather, I think the sexism exhibited by the likes of Chris Matthews hurts women in general because there was no outraged reaction to it, particularly by men in leadership positions, including by Obama. It creates the impression that it is okay to behave that way towards women.
<
p>Sexism affects about 50 percent of the population, yet Barack Obama will not speak out against it unless it will help him with his campaign for President? Assuming that is true, what does that say about his character?
He has already spoken out many times regarding sexism, but I don’t think he will give the big speech you are asking for until he has Clinton on his side.
When and where has Senator Obama spoken out on sexism? It seems I have missed those events.
I have heard him speak briefly on the issue in several speeches, but I do think it would be a good idea for him to address it more thoroughly when he is the nominee.
<
p>BTW, Clinton is going to have to do a big speech on race if she ever becomes the nominee. Her statements while campaigning in PA, KY and WV did huge damage to her already weakened image in the African American community.
and read just about every press release, new story, etc. on politics. Funny – I haven’t picked up a single speech on gender by the good Senator. So what specifically did he have to say about gender?
<
p>As for Senator Clinton – you know, it’s a funny thing, HR. The Clinton’s enjoyed a very good relationship with African Americans until this race. I think the ant hills that were made into Mount Everest by the press and campaign supporters of the good Senator had a lot to do with that, and likely, that was part of the strategy. Interestingly enough, I wonder how well you think the relationship that Senator Obama has with the working class, regardless of color? That vote out of Puerto Rico was telling.
I said that he spoke on the issue briefly in his speech. I don’t remember his exact words, but I remember him speaking out against gender discrimination along with other types of discrimination.
<
p>I agree with you that this whole race thing has been blown up way out of proportion, but like it or not many African Americans are very unhappy with how they perceive Clinton has run this campaign. She is going to need to change that perception if she wants to win their votes in the future.
<
p>I am not sure what the PR tells us. Obama has not done all that bad with the blue collar vote, except in the Appalachian regions of the country. His big loss in PR might indicate a weakness or it might just indicate that Clinton did a much better job at getting the local political machine to work for her, probably a bit of both. PR is much more machine-driven than any other state or territory in this election. In any case, I totally agree that Obama is going to need to work much harder to win the blue-collar vote in the fall.
<
p>
with Obama by her side, possibly at the Convention.