Sure, anyone can be an anti-racist, no problem. As for me, personally, I hang with cosmopolitan people mostly–jews, asians, egyptians, west africans, the odd european, and blacks. I don’t have many white friends, more or less because so, so many of them are pretty damn clueless. I have had some, and am always open to more. I think it’s mostly just that I haven’t been in many areas where there are many white people who aren’t pretty racist, or very preppie to edge the teeth. I live in NorthEast Cobb.

RE my statement that noting his experience level (and while I agree it’s not the only point, it’s an important one for me) wasn’t racism, that was directed not to you but to Jill’s statement of “but because he’s someone in a category that we usually don’t consider entitled to those privileges, it throws us off” relating to the portion I quoted.

Even though Obama apparently was prevailed upon to change his mind, he did voice the opinion just a few years back that he was not qualified based on experience, and prided himself on not being “one of those people” who was going to start campaigning upon joining the Senate. Somebody agreeing with him on that — I think you need more info to conclude that person’s racist.

The age-35 thing was set forth at a point when life expectancy was much less than it is today, and the average person at 35 was peaking in her/his career. That’s not the case today. I don’t rule out that someone in her/his mid-40s could have enough of a political resume, but I don’t feel that is true in this case. (For what it’s worth, were Obama up against someone with all of his characteristics including experience level, except not being a POC, I’d vote for Obama).

In any case, I certainly respect your views and assessments and thanks for the challenging dialogue and good humor as always. It really is a pleasure.

I already linked to that :P

Noting that doesn’t indicate racism. It does indicate he changed is mind somewhere along the line.

But obviously, there are many more things that go into a president than experience. (At least I hope so – or else McCain is a freaking shoe-in, he’s been around forever.) And all the Constitution says is age 35, native-born and been here for 14 years (that’s a random number…)

We’ll see, now, won’t we?

Just visiting Pam’s House Blend, I found it interesting regarding Obama’s experience level and whether or not noting this implicates racism, that Obama himself stated in 04 that he was not running in 08 because he did not have the experience.

Octogalore –

My assessment is not based on one op-ed or one incident. It is a pattern of behavior. But I understand your sentiments. I can see where you are coming from in terms of an older hero figure, but it’s kind of like the posts on your blog about “feminist foremothers” and their contributions. Yes, they were important, trailblazing people. But they have flaws just like the rest of us.

One of the reasons that I percieve Clinton as being racist, is because I’m familiar with Atlanta political history. And as such, I’m familiar with the general tactics of southern “liberals” who are running for office. Bill Hartsfield was running a triangulation racket way before Bill Clinton ever got to it, and I do believe guys like Bill Hartsfield were both Clinton’s inspiration for at least some of their politics. This involved coopting the black elite, having them drive black people to the booth in favor of the democrats, making a coalition with white elites who want racial peace above all, justice not included, and triangulate that by appealing to conservative populist lower class white people. It lead to the perpetuation of the racial system, only without violence and with voting, and it lead to most progressive bills being loaded with reactionary sensibilities…think of Clinton’s welfare reform bill. I percieve Hillary as running the same sort of game, except that this works in a *general* election, and not in a contested primary with more than one black-friendly canidate. She shouldn’t have tried what she did in SC, if she hadn’t, she might still hold 30% or more of the black vote.

now…
/me pinches the bridge of shah8′s nose…
Let’s have a little realpolitik session here.

point blank–Clinton’s run was a *bad* thing for political feminism. Most of all, it reinforced big stereotypes about the mercurical and mercinary attitudes of feminists.

Before you denounce me…Do you *really* think that female politicians have been served well by Clinton? Think about it. The *BIG* picture.

Most female politicians are democrats, and almost all female politicians very much *must* count on the support of minorities. Grenholm and McCaskill were pretty much *vaulted* into office on the urban black vote. Do you really think female politicians, especially white ones, can afford to have the perception that such politicians feels free to engage in racism and stab the backs of their minority constituency at will? Each election is local, with local factors, which should mitigate that damage, but do not think there isn’t damage to the viability of other female politicians.

Secondly, how about thinking about all the black leaders who responded to Clinton’s need and repaying debts to the Clintons might feel? All of them have egg on their faces, and some of them are going to be facing primary challenges as a result of her actions. Does this not put a damper on any future (white) woman’s ability to collect needed endorsement from mayors, concilpeople, congressional critters, and celebrities?. Never know, maybe those hard working white people who voted for republicans really do have more valuable votes!

Lastly, does not the overall poor grace in losing deliver a story and a scheme to straightjacket future female canidates for president?

Really, think about it. Feminist must rely on coalition politics to get our issues heard. Repeatedly actingly like we aren’t in a coalition, and that we don’t have obligations to the other members of that coalition in words and deed…just isn’t…going…to…work.

Big Picture!

/me can’t wait for Shirley Franklin to attempt for Senator of Georgia…

The dynamics that I am seeing in which many women are bunching up as if there is a Team Woman against the World, or often, Team Black, and in the way that many women have been pressuring others that Clinton need gender solidarity, even in the face of negative detriment to the overall goal of the general recognition of women as full human being with the same rights and privileges as anyone else. I believe in egalitarianism, or more fully, a very sophisticated and wide ranging “might makes right”, which I don’t want to explain–it still amounts to the old marxist statement, anyways. I see the important goals of feminism being subverted to support the aims of one woman. I don’t think this is right. And I don’t believe that agressive support for Clinton (sexism or otherwise) contribute to the welfare of women as a whole. I believe in the agressive support of women as a whole–directly.

Since tekanji‘s response largely avoids responding to *any* of my in-depth responses in the previous thread, I’ll just answer them here. My point has always been thus: Clinton is a big girl. She can take care of herself. The political arena has been and always will be full of insults. It’s not going to be different for any woman who chooses to run. Do you think any of the women senators, especially those who were new and breaking in the scene, like Cantwell or McCaskill, didn’t face huge buckets of sexism? They still won, and without handholding from feminists, and with plenty of help from minorities, who might be sexist or not, still evaluated the canidates on what they can do for the community. One big honking difference between *their* success and *Clinton’s* failure, is that they followed the Jackie Robinson book of toughness. Just be better than they are, and leave the noisy fools in her dust. It’s why Obama’s winning. Grace under fire, and composure under stress. Do your freakin’ job, the best you can, and network behind the scene for prominent backers. *Clinton* has not done any of that, and entangling sexism with her whining and race-baiting does feminism a disservice!

What we need to do is defend against sexism that impacts women as a whole. Yeah, that means defending Clinton by providing a voice against that stupidity. But you know, it’s not typical assholism that blocks women from being considered fit for that job. It’s things like the attitudes and dynamics in this list by Libby Copeland @ http://www.truthout.org/article/libby-copeland-the-rules-a-fair-fight that we need to fight against. Those ideas are pernicious and serve as a block against consideration of women for high office.

I will *always* be full-throated in defense of Clinton against the *generalization* of these attitudes. I certainly damn well have defended Clinton against family members who use sexist attacks to denigrate her. However, this is not the same as being in an uproar over *every* attack on Clinton because it was an attack on women. This is not, and never has been true…It leads to marginal crap like zuzu trying to work sexism into the whole periodically quote, or the linking of the video in the recent post as some sort of general statement about bitchy women, when it’s really, waaaaay too tied into Clinton’s actions to be taken as a general attitude against other women. It also leads to crazy stuff like people crying out that Obama flicking on his neck is some sort of dogwhistle that’s supposed be some sort of dismissal or insult on Hillary. And it leads to racist stuff that is progressively imbueing a racial element into the use of sexism (not that both sexism and antisexism hasn’t *always* been deeply influenced by racism).

I’m just asking activists to not attack the image, but the substance of sexism, and I’m asking people to make actual *judgements*, and let the little stuff go (there’s just waaaay too much of it), and press against the big stuff, against the *structural* memes that block the fullest range of possible canidates. I’m asking people not to automatically assume that Clinton is a feminist icon, merely because she’s running for president, and to not conflate Hillary with Feminism.

1) I did not claim the quoted person was absolved of all sins because he backed a black candidate. I did claim that because I’m familiar with the circumstances in which he did this, they satisfied me that he didn’t have issues regarding “someone in a category that we usually don’t consider entitled to those privileges.” That was an assumption, and a false one. He used words like “negligible” because he does feel that short-term senators without much political pedigree have negligible accomplishments compared to other candidates, regardless of race.

2) I would not have written the Boston Globe piece if I were Ferraro, because it doesn’t help her case. But I do not think that her pointing out demographic issues is racist or hiding behind others. I read her point as: Reagan democrats don’t care about sexism towards Clinton, but care about what they perceive affects them. I think her making this point reveals bitterness for the misperceptions of her earlier statement. And therefore takes it into personal territory and should have been avoided. But motivated by racism, as opposed to taking something personally and reacting? Again, I don’t think so.

3) I am not happy with the Boston Globe piece. But I do not believe your description of racism applies to Ferraro based on what she says there.

Latoya – Ferraro is one of my childhood heroines. My grandmother lives in her congressional district and hers is the first and only autograph I’ve ever gotten, when much younger, from a “celeb.” I went to rallies for her, read everything she wrote and went to hear speeches. I am coming to this discussion with some gestalt around GF that is influencing my thoughts here. For this reason, I am not sure that our getting into around this issue is productive. I hear where you are coming from. This is just one of those issues where I see it differently.

I simply said that she doesn’t need the help, which is not saying that I have a tolerance for it. And especially, I’m saying that anti-sexism is for *helping* and *defending* people, *not* as some sort of *offensive* and *political* weapon.

Which is what I see many pro-clinton people doing.

Yeah, we agree on that count. But you’re still coming off (or directly stating) that HRC doesn’t need to be defended from sexism because she’s actively benefiting from racism. Trust me, I understand and *really* feel where you’re coming from on this. But that doesn’t make it right or fair. And we (anti-racist/possibly feminist/progressive thinkers) have to suck it up and continue on. Doesn’t that suck? But that’s how it is. The argument that sexism is not the same as criticizing HRC is a valid one. We don’t need to point to anyone else’s fucked up behavior to justify it. And anytime we start up that kind of comparison, it leaves us open to misinterpretation, or starts that whole round of “this is worse!” style arguing that is not helpful. Just argue the point.

If their claims are empty, call them on it.

There is more than one way to win an argument.