The equality/symmetry argument explains a great deal of the disconnect among people who refuse to see themselves or their thinking as racist. It's a valuable addition to the dialogue.
"The country," she added, "is caught up in the concept."
Bundled up in that statement is the sense that racial identity itself is a concept. An option. Something that's selected from other options, then adopted and promoted. But ultimately, a choice. In Ferraro's eyes, Barack has chosen to be black because that gives him a leg up, an unfair advantage over the beige world. Put aside the fact that her own candidate has shamelessly played the gender card and every stereotype associated with it, in offense and defense. Never mind that Barack Obama does not use his race. According to her, he is manipulating us with the novelty of his blackness, and we're responding to him because of it. There they go, voting for the black guy. They must be mesmerized by all that melanin.
The racism was so flippant, the bigotry so breezy and matter-of-fact, that some people didn't register it for what it was. In the end, though, I believe that we who've chosen beige as our color resist looking hard at this issue because we don't really want to see what lurks inside our own hearts and minds.
Theater of the Patently Absurd or "Bitch Is the New Black"
The knock on the Clintons -- the candidacy as well as the campaign -- has always been that they would say anything to get elected and exploit divisions rather than build bridges. Both of those traits were on fatalistic display when Geraldine Ferraro recently asserted that Barack Obama is lucky to be a black man or he could not hope to come this far.
"The country," she added, "is caught up in the concept."
What makes these comments so consistent with the campaign has less to do with Ferraro's position as a fundraiser for Hillary than their tone. Anyone can raise money and anyone can opine. It's the familiar vituperative ring tone and an emerging take-no-prisoners attitude toward race from people who seem resentful that black voters have left them. In an emerging pattern, Hillary neither denounced nor rejected Ferraro's remarks. A day later, a bitter Ferraro resigned her unpaid post.
That bitterness also followed a pattern. Ferraro was "furious" and "livid" when Obama called her remarks "patently absurd."
"Every time that campaign is upset about something, they call it racist," she responded. "I will not be discriminated against because I am white."
Ordinarily, these are fighting words for Obama supporters. After all, they follow the Clintons' numerous campaign comments and innuendo about Obama's acknowledged drug use, Hillary's abandonment of black voters in South Carolina, Bill Clinton's belittling of black votes, Jesse Jackson's presidential runs and that demeaning "young man" comment. It's likely the campaign leaked the photo of Obama in Somali dress, and it is certain that Hillary deliberately wavered in denying that Obama was a Muslim. Even the absurdly successful attempt to cast the frontrunner as a plausible vice presidential running mate exudes a sense of entitlement any black candidate would be hard-pressed to match.
Call it a campaign because it is a campaign: To discredit Obama's standing with voters by appealing to racial myth, fear and unconscious racism.
I remember a different Ferraro. I was a proud college student and the lone male of my household when Walter Mondale picked her as the first woman running mate in 1984 and set my awe in motion. Almost 10 years later, I was working as a lowly, nameless associate at a big law firm and spent a little time with her. We were conducting a mock human rights trial on genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Ms. Ferraro was our star witness. I sheepishly helped to prepare her on the law. She was just as gracious and strong and forthright as I had always admired her to be. We were briefly joined by our shared belief in humanity. I was starstruck.
But she's wrong now and in ways that may prove irreparable for the Democratic Party. The central flaw in her remarks is a conflation commonly made in talk about race -- that is, the difference between equality and symmetry.
The idea of equality is a complicated mess, but most of us agree that when it comes to racial equality the principle requires finding present opportunity in the context of a very unequal past. Therefore, most of us would not assume equal chances between someone who comes from a family of generational privileges and someone whose family has been denied them for generations. We want opportunities to be equal for both, but we know that we do not start from the scratch of the present moment.
Ferraro's comments about Obama's presidential appeal turn the reality of a first-viable black candidacy on its head by claiming that he is somehow being given unequal treatment by an electorate "caught up in the concept." If the overwhelming blackness of Hurricane Katrina's deaths and survivors were not enough evidence, news last week that one in 15 black men are incarcerated (and disenfranchised) offers only a statistical glimpse of the disfavored status of black men in the polity. Behind the numbers are anecdotes all around that reveal how in educational access and achievement, employment and economic mobility -- everywhere but on a stage or in sports -- being a black man is about the most unequal person you'd ever want to be. Obama was right. On the facts about equality, Ferraro's comment was patently absurd.
Yet Ferraro's reply to the response shows an irreconcilable demand for symmetry. Symmetry is the conservative idea of equality which sees no history, recent or long past. It demands that both sides have exactly the same thing this very moment. Symmetry is the battle cry of affirmative action opponents. "Racism works in two different directions," she explained.
This obsession with symmetry leaves a lot of people of color shaking their heads (and their fists). The more it's demanded, the more elusive it becomes. Twice since January we have seen the Clinton campaign resort directly or indirectly to racial messages -- now and surrounding South Carolina. Each time, the national press, like Ferraro, suggest that "both sides" have gotten nasty. This simply isn't true, and the expectation of symmetry obscures a lot. Comments by Samantha Power, an Obama advisor, calling Hillary a "monster" were the only ad hominem remarks about her, but they were neither about her race or her gender. One should have an equal opportunity to be feel offended by a perceived racist slight without being lumped in with your attacker.
And the great irony is -- in fact, the greatest show of asymmetry in the whole election this far -- that Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro may speak openly, fervently and proudly about their gender without dooming their campaign, and Barack Obama cannot do the same with his race. Comb the record. You will not find him doing that. His blackness is so obvious it cannot dare be mentioned by him or anyone near his campaign.
Indeed, the substance of Ferraro's remarks reflected her concern that sexism is evident in some of the campaign coverage (and there's something to this, I believe). Hillary has made similar claims more than once. Yet no one will ever assume they can find their voice on behalf of Obama with the kind of "humor" expressed by comic Tina Fey on Hillary's new favorite, Saturday Night Live: "Bitch is the new black!"
This race-gender/silence-assertion irony reveals many things -- some bad, some good. On the one hand, it is unfortunate that Obama cannot speak with his customary eloquence and thoughtfulness (outside of his books) on an issue most Americans wish they understood a little better. The fact that Hillary and Ferraro -- two highly symbolic "firsts" -- believe their frequent references to both their genders and to sexism will not hurt the Clinton candidacy demonstrates a powerful imbalance in this country's views on race. That is, the country is "caught up" in those concepts so unequally that Ferraro can take for granted her right to angrily assert her gender in public.
On the other hand, Obama's racial reticence may be part of an unprecedented approach to transformation and unity. Subtlety has its place, especially in a national campaign where substance bows to controversy every time. He seems mostly to lead by example.
However, race, like gender, does not belong only to the black candidate. There was a time when many in the country looked to the Clintons as sage observers of racial dynamics, but Hillary has clearly abandoned that mantle. Her campaign speaks of a foregone black vote, as if it were lost to science or bad luck. Yet it was not long ago that she and Bill commanded intense black voter support and affection. Never have we seen a candidate for such an important office squander so much racial goodwill so willingly.
The ultimate problem is that eventually we must all pay the costs of these moments -- even if we pay in lost opportunities. Given Obama's silence about race and Clinton's baiting of it, her rapidly eroding support among black voters may have more to do with the vision of community she is offering than with his message. Either way, nothing better demonstrates the differences between their candidacies than these issues. And nothing more clearly foreshadows electoral doom in November either. If there is anything this nation should be tired of, it's fighting unjustified wars.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Your article is certainly thought provoking on the race, gender, and class issues we all find so difficult, baffeling, frightening, threatening and confusing.
What is the "right" position to take? What is OK to talk about that wasn't yesterday and won't be tomorrow? How much should we allow for the fact that there is such confusion and veiled understanding/ How much should we focus on race? gender? class? Which one affects a person more? It affects the person I would guess. Shirley Chisolm stated that gender was far more limiting than race in her experiences. Does a white woman born into an abusive, dirt poor, single parent household with a succession of "uncles" raping her have more "natural" dominant cultural advantages than a black man from an upper class home of wealth and educational opportunities? If she continues on the track that has been laid out for her and becomes a whore (prostitute) and an abuser did she squander her natural abilities and the opportunities of white America?
If the black man continues in the footsteps of his class and follows the path laid out for him has he risen above and conquered the hell and high water of racist America to get where he is?
Who has more to overcome? And suppose the white woman by some stroke of luck or a small miracle is somehow exposed to some thought, or book, or person that puts a glimmer of an idea in her head that she is not required to live as all her ancestors have lived and somehow that idea grows, and she reads, and thinks, and educates herself to the point that she can claw her way into a little crappy job, and therapy and then college, University and even public service at some point, maybe local government and more.
Will she be seen as having all the advantages because she is white?
And then, suppose somehow, through some kind of divine intervention she is actually running for office and has the spotlite on her. She is a a public servant, running for office, she has made a name and a reputation for all the good she has done, the contributions and accomplishments, people love her. Then: her past comes out and she is dissected by the press/media... and of course the blogs having their field day with her and her past... maybe a guy she lived with or a working girl she worked with, sells a story to the tabloids? What is the reaction to her? What are her choices and chances? Will she be seen as the woman who has been given everything because she grew up white in white America... what she had to overcome just a blip, unimportant... and in fact her fault. How will she be covered, with snickers and condemnation?
Now what if the black man also becomes a public servant, runs for office, gains a name and a reputation for all the good he accomplishes, people love him and then he also falls from Grace for some reason or other, perhaps a sex scandal or a money scandal or a favoritism scandal. How will he be perceived and portrayed in the media? will he be snickered at, treated as a pariah, be judged and thrown to the dogs or will he be portrayed as someone who rose to such heights through so much hard work and over coming of so many obstacles in our racist country? Will he be seen through the lens of what a tragedy after having achieved what he did to have a flaw of this or that. Will accusations of racism be leveled in his downfall, because white America can't stand to see a black man overcome all the forces arrayed against him and buck the odds and succeed? Will their by outcries that "they" found a way to tear him down? Will he be portrayed as a victim of a racist society or will his flaws be seen to have been his undoing?
What I am trying to paint, albeit awkwardly is that it isn't so black and white, pun intended, it isn't such a simple world we live in anymore.
Yes, racism exists, as does sexism, ageism and every other damn ism known to humanity. BUT it is more complex than claiming Obama is a victim of racism from the Clintons... no I am not trying to paint Hillary Clinton as the woman in my scenario.. that should be obvious. I am attempting to take 2 different examples that are worlds apart, both examples and worlds that I am familiar with to show that advantages and disadvantages are much different than simple racism claims. Who has it worse, who is more oppressed is a stupid question.
But in the scenario above who is the one who has suffered and been oppressed more? Why?
And we aren't even discussing Asians, Jews and ... in my humble opinion, the ones in our culture who have been treated far worse than any other "other", the First Nations/Native Americans.
Take your best shot at the statement I will not be intimidated or back off it. If we are going to have a contest who has been treated worse, how has suffered more in the history of all the oppression in the history of this country I will say that it is the Native Americans.
I think the point is to stop the contest. What I have seen Obama doing is attempting to stop the contest... without acknowledging that there has been one which doesn't work. He doiesn't have to talk about the oppression of racism. We all know that. I think the reality of oppression itself is what needs to be addressed, not the oppression OF racism, or sexism, or any of the others. Sure, the examples can and must be "spoken" as examples but it is oppression itself that needs to be opened up for examination... all over the world there is oppression, all over the world, throughout all of history there have been some who have oppressed, some who have been oppressed... these are not drawn up along strict color lines either... There have always been classes who try to keep their stockpile growing at the expense of an others survival or dignity. I have to say that now that I think about it- it does seem that in just about every culture, class, race, society throughout history women have been on the bottom of the pecking order- though that isn't the point I am trying to make here. What is it about oppression that we are so insensitive to that we can only see the obvious and glaring... and often see it where it isn't (just my opinion) Why are we so tied up with our own identity as oppressed or victims of oppression that we cannot see the larger picture of the ingrained systemic nature of it and stand with rather than against others. Why are we so quick to jump all over someone as racist when quite possibly we have not heard correctly, or sexist when we are looking through our own lenses and biases?
for instance Mr. Troutt says he met Ms. Ferraro, did some work with her and found her to be all the good he had thought her. But now she is condemned. Is there no possibility that what she said, however clumsily was not meant as it has been portrayed?
Certainly their are conversations all over America of people talking about where we are in this country that we have such a strong candidate, a black man who may just wind up President. We are on that "turning point" in history and yes, I can see that if Obama was white he would not capture the hopes, imagination, deepest desires of Americans as he does now. This does not take anything away from his accomplishments, his stellar campaign, his hard, hard work, his ambition, his focus and vision, his willingness to cut through "the fights of the past" and get on with it. Just the opposite really. If we were not to accept, speak, acknowledge that race is part of the package then we are deluding ourselves. If we cannot allow that where we are in history combined with the fineness of the candidate, the WHOLE candidate then why did Jesse Jackson not win? It feels disingenuous to me to say he didn't win because he is a black man and no black man could be President in that historical time and place but disallow that blackness does not have some element in this historical time and place. What is so wrong with that? It is understandable to me. I didn't hear her saying he was lucky as a human being to have been born black. I understood her to be saying that he is lucky politically that we are so hungry for someone to bridge the gap. My God, we had a bunch of white men who were accomplished, intelligent experienced, passionate, liberal and ready to be President who were white. We didn't choose them. We chose a black man and a woman. That in itself should tell us about the historical crisis of need we are in.
It is oppression that needs to be addressed. Not racism as something separate. That only seems to perpetuate it.
I think the hysterical reactions to "racism" coming from the Clinton camp have done a lot of damage to the Obama campaign, particularly the LBJ and MLK thing. Many people I know, black and white were very ticked off about that... not at Hillary, at Obama.
Anyway, if anyone can speak about race, and why the contest about who is more oppressed and address oppression itself it will be Barack Obama... if his advisors and surrogates let him.
" Bitch is the new black?"
I'm an old white guy and that comment embarrasses ME. In the context of a Presidential campaign where your opponent is black, it's arrogant and supercilious and, well, DUMB. How many black people do you think are chuckling over it tonight?
The other day our common enemy, wrapped secure in his codpiece and SS bodyguards, made an extremely silly comment to the boots on the ground about he so envied them their "romantic" war.
How about, "Bitch is the new Bush?"
I guarantee that could quirk a smile or two up at one-two-five and Lexington.
"Bitch may be the new black, but black is the new president, bitch." - Tracy Morgan to Tina Fey, SNL
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/16/snl-shows-blatant-antisp_n_91736.html
Pretty much all of my black friends thought it was hilarious, as did I.
I also thought Tracy Morgan's comments on SNL update were hilarious as well.
Thank you for a balanced and thoughtful piece. Like many of us, I am tired of folks who are born on third base acting like they hit a triple. As some old-guard feminists are bemoaning the idea that Mrs. Bill Clinton is not getting a fair shake, I hope they will remember that many of their gains in equal rights have been made by the work done by the folks who lead the civil rights movement and the legislation that resulted.
I am a 45 year old black woman who has chosen to support Obama because I simply like him better. Obama and Clinton are so similiar on their positions that there is very little to argue about. So, for me, it comes down to who do I like better? Clinton's (and the people she has chosen to surround herself with) intractability seriously worries me. Her inability to admit to a mistake and willingness to throw verbal blows -- even when she knows they are untrue -- are dangerous character traits. I would like to have voted for a woman but not this woman.
By contrast, I have come to believe that I can trust Obama's temperament, his thoughtfulness, his reflective responses to hard questions and his willingness to make hard choices that align with his principles even if it means that he has to cut ties with people he obviously loves.
In the final analysis, this fight about whose pain is worse does nothing more than keep the existing white patriarchal system in place. A system that has done damage to both people of color and white women. Maybe when this is all over we can pull together to turn this system on its head.
Thank you David Dante Troutt for your well-written piece.
Our history and the media have put Obama (and hope for meaningful change) in such a tight box. It is with pride that I watch as he takes on each hurdle, each wall with calmness and class. We have become quite adept at taking someone's strength and twisting it into a weakness and that is the game being played against Obama from all sides. He can't take about his blackness, he can't respond too aggressively against (negative) attacks because he is the "hope" candidate and on and on. He has more than proven his ability to lead by the way he as managed his campaign and handled the delicate tightrope he has been forced to walk.
Folks, say/think what you will. Obama's resume is a little on the thin side. Is it racist to make that observation? Is it racist to think that perhaps people have "gotten caught up in the concept" of electing the first black president? I don't think so. I think there's something to what Ferraro said: That any time anyone says anything remotely negative about Obama, they run the risk of being labeled a racist. And that is one of the great tragedies of what has otherwise been an amazing primary campaign -- not Clinton getting a little tough. I hope people understand that Republicans will be throwing a lot more than the kitchen sink at Obama if he gets the nomination.
In short. Yes, it was a racist comment.
I don't believe Geralding Ferraro is a racist, but I do believe that it was a racially insensitive statement.
What would have been the reaction from the Clinton camp if a high-ranking, public figure in Obama's campaign would have said (not implied) said Hillary wouldn't be where she is if she wasn't a woman? I sense something stronger than "Shame on you." They would have been besides themselves.
Ferraro wasn't cheering on the fact that blacks have a candidate to vote for, as she has later pretended to say. She referred to Obama's success in the campaign as a "problem" for Hillary and cited his ethnicity as the reason for his success. She also said if he were another race or a woman that he would not be as successful. As if other demographics don't vote for candidates "like them."
Is there a benefit from him being black with black voters and SOME white voters? Yes. Is there an eqaully if not greater disadvantage to him being black from SOME white and hispanic voters? Absolutely.
That is the incredibly short-sighted view that is the problem with her remarks. EVERY candidate benefits from identity politics on some level. Does she not think that some women are with Hillary just because she is a woman? There are many more white women in America than there are blacks.
His name is Barack Hussein Obama for goodness' sake. I was at a comedy show just two years ago where a black comedian was joking that we would one day have a black president, but he wouldn't be named Barack Obama.
His run is remarkable, on every level. To marginalize it as being attributed to his race is simply ridiculous. We've had recent black candidates for president. Did blacks jump on the Carol Moseley Braun, Alan Keyes or Al Sharpton bandwagons? No.
As a matter of fact, Hillary had the lead in the black electorate when the campaign began. Barack had to earn it and frankly she and her husband gave it away.
If you don't want to be jumped on for being racist, don't bring it up. Especially if you're a Democrat. It has nothing to do with the issues and blacks have ALWAYS supported the eventual Democratic nominee by 80 - 90%.
Ferraro's inability to understand this (even if she doesn't agree) is disheartenting. And as for her indignant response that she felt she was being "attacked because she's white. How's that?"
That's dumb. That's how that is.
So Hillary is only "getting a little tough" by injecting race into the conversation, and "Republicans will be much tougher". The end justifies the means. You don't recognize the racism in "getting caught up in the concept" because you think that you're the victim. Saying that a black man with a middle name of "Hussein" has an advantage is so absurd that one day (perhaps after the shock treatments) you might look back and laugh. Bill O'Reilly's remarks about lynching Michelle Obama and Ferraro's remarks make appropriate bookends.
Rev Wright CHOSEN as 20 year spiritual mentor......20 years of Racist, Hate-America-Mongering and NO acknowledgement of misstep until his feet were put directly into the fire this week. That is a definite and clear display of the man's judgment and leadership. Obama kool-aid drinkers would better serve him by THINKING a little by not continuing to stoke their hatred of Hillary and solidify those who already have some doubts about him.
But I suspect your arrogance will again surpass your intelligence.
And how would YOU like to be publicly pilloried by one or two stupid things YOU said in public? (Don't kid yourself, we ALL say stupid things from time to time.)
It isn't that we're "caught up in the concept" of Obama, it's that we reject the notion of giving second and third chances to failed politicians. Geraldine Ferraro was the Democratic party nominee for vice-president during one of the largest CAMPAIGN FAILURES in it's history. (1984)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/3/1944/68223/848/446626
Besides bungling her current campaign with a FAILED STRATEGY post Feb. 5th, Hillary Clinton, since March 4th, has proven that she is only capable of winning the nomination by making it impossible for her to win the general election.
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/more_on_the_clinton_obama_and.php
Prognosis: FAILURE.
We're not "caught up" in "the concept" of Obama, we've just accepted that partisan politics is getting nothing accomplished.
Obama-Webb in '08
"Twice since January we have seen the Clinton campaign resort directly or indirectly to racial messages -- now and surrounding South Carolina. Each time, the national press, like Ferraro, suggest that "both sides" have gotten nasty. This simply isn't true, and the expectation of symmetry obscures a lot." -David Dante Troutt
Troutt nails it with this one.
Expectations of "symmetry," the idea that equality must come about only in the context of the here and now, without regard to the racial imbalances of the past, is patently conservative and unworkable.
Now, all we need to do is apply Troutt's wisdom to the tensions between Jewish Israel and the Arab Muslim Middle East and we might find the root of the rot that now infects and endangers the entire West.
Very well written. Thank you for saying what many of us are thinking.
For me personally, after the antics of Hillary in this campaign I cannot find the words to convey how much I despise her. If she manages to steal the nomination I will vote for McCain and hope for a veto-proof Dem controlled congress.
Or that McCain, due to his age, will just serve four years, but the Democratic party is so damaged, I'm not sure four years will heal this mess.
Mr. Troutt, thank you for this cogent, dispassionate article.
In reading it, it brought to mind many of the false arguments manifested in Plessy v. Ferguson and the whole "Seperate, but equal" mentality that prevailed for decades that was somehow considered fair by most in the majority white/caucasian establishment. Apparently, there are still some in that demographic that feel this way.
Much of what you outline reminds me Thurgood Marshall's arguments in Brown v. Board of Education that effectively overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.
Rehnquist had argued in 1952 that he supported Plessy because, in the long run, the majority would always determine the consitutionality ( ...and therefore, the rights or lack thereof ) of equality laws. Laws that affect all of us, but more profoundly, minorities.
Ferraro and much of the clinton crowd seem to be lamenting the nascent loss of that ability...the ability of the dictatorship of the majority to make all of the decisions.
David Dante Troutt...thank you for such a well argued piece. BRAVO.
I just watched "To Kill A Mockingbird" with my kids and the line that stuck to me was "You never really understand a person . . . until you climb into his skin and walk around in it." So true. Ferraro's comments are patently absurd because if she had spent a lifetime experiencing life from the perspective of a member of a racial minority in the U.S., she would never have described Obama's ascent in the manner she did. It's akin to hearing people say that racial minorities now have an easier time than whites because of affirmative action. It makes a lot of sense to whites (perhaps because they may have a shared experience of loss of opportunities and resentment). However, for racial minorities who have daily experiences of prejudice, the benefit they perceive from affirmative action is a drop in the bucket compared to the barriers they perceive from racial prejudice, such that any description of their lives as "easy" seems totally absurd. Obama touches so many people because he doesn't seem to have to "imagine what it's like" - these people sense that he knows how they feel. It is this authenticity they are responding to. Obama is successful not because it is easier for a black man to succeed now due to the fact that everyone wants a black man to succeed. Obama is successful because people who have heard Obama and respond to his message wants Obama, who happens to be a black man, to succeed.
"Black Like Me" is a good film for kids, especially younger ones. Actually, the book is even better, but the film is shorter. :)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057889/
Hint: Do an internet search for "black like me torrent" if you can't find a copy of the film for sale/rent. Netflix doesn't seem to have it.
What I have seen in this campaign is a whole bunch of people- the mainstream media, the blogs and the campaigns themselves- trying to discuss race and gender without the tools to do so, This stuff is deep level work and playing it out in the heat of a political campaign seems impossible. The basic of comparing the isms is one place where that goes badly wrong. Ferroro's comments are indefensible. She shows her lack of tools to understand institutionalized racism and power. There should be no argument with that. With that said, however, I disagree with the basic premise that Hillary mentioning gender in her campaign demonstrates how far we have come on gender. That is nonsense. The sexism has been so appalling in the media that she has no choice. One example- the "facial decoder" that msnbc brought on to analyze every move in Hillary's face. Would that EVER be done to a male candidate? I don't think so. Another example- the outright dog whistle from the Obama campaign "Periodically when she is feeling down..." If anyone believes for one second that was just an incidental choice of words, I have some swamp land down here in disenfranchised Florida I can sell you.
Milosarah, I am an Obama supporter and I think your piece is reasonable. You mentioned the "facial decoder", please forgive me therefore for being a bit facetious as I ask: What's up with this wide-eyed, open mouth, very expressive I-am-so-happy-and-I-am-winning look she has adopted since the New Hampshire primary? I cannot remember her looking or behaving like that before. It makes her look insincere and rather scary. What do you think?
Both Ferraro and Fey knew exactly what they were saying and doing. They are both highly educated wealthy elite women.
They were both cynically playing the race card. They are not racists themselves, instead they were cynically fanning the flames of racism.
They must both be loudly condemned and boycotted.
I don't think Fey's statement was a reference to race as an issue. When she said "bitch is the new black", she is referring to the color black as a fashion reference -- you know, how everyone in New York supposedly wears black clothing all of the time. When someone declares that "X" is the "new black", it is supposed to imply that "X" has become the latest popular trend.
That said, I don't agree with Fey's statement. The idea that we need a bitch to take the White House is a fallacy. The President is not a monarch, but a leader, so someone with tact and diplomacy is needed (like Barack Obama), rather than someone who has a disposition to attacking others and claiming to be a constant victim (like Hillary Clinton).
I agree. I'm a strong Obama supporter, but I definitely took Fey's statement as the fashion reference, and not racial at all.
Those who "fan the flames of racism" ARE racists. It doesn't matter what they think they are or what they pretend to be. As Adler said, don't listen to what the words say. Watch where the feet go.
Posted March 14, 2008 | 04:21 PM (EST)