Sexism vs. Racism: The Obama & Clinton Campaigns

Sexism and racism are both equally awful. As Democrats, we should remain vigilant in fighting against both of these injustices. Sexism can be particularly tough to battle because it can be easier to hide sexism at times.

I see posters claiming that Obama and his campaign has participated in blatant sexism. I don't see it. At every turn, Obama has talked about how formidable, how capable and how tenacious Hillary Clinton is.

But if we're really going to discuss who has really used racism or sexism to their benefit - here's one question.

Which campaign has actively, forcefully, behind the scenes and in public, claimed that the other side can not win because of their race or sex?

How many confirmed stories have you heard about the Obama campaign telling superdelegates and party insiders that Hillary Clinton cannot win because she's a woman? I haven't heard ANY stories like this.

How many confirmed stories have you heard about the Clinton campaign telling superdelegates and party insiders that Barack Obama cannot win because he's black? I've read too many stories of this to count.

So again, which campaign is blatantly using and manipulating racism/sexism to their own benefit?

The Clinton campaign.

Unless someone can show me times/ways in which the Obama campaign has sent out the message that Hillary Clinton can not/should not win because she's a woman.

No, really. They say it. They really say that.

And it's disgusting.

Did Obama dismiss Hillary's wins by comparing her to Geradine Ferraro?

No.

But that's what Bill Clinton did with Obama and Jesse Jackson.

While pointing out, twice, that she didn't cry for Katrina victims.

:shrug:

I can point to people on Clinton's side and Obama's side that have made statements that have crossed the line at times.

But which campaigns have actually utilized the tragedies of racism or sexism to win?

The Clinton campaign.

Jackson is a campaign co-chair who utilized the tragedies of racism and sexism, both, strategically on national television.

Has it never occurred to you that both have, equally?

There was a period of days where Jackson was flipping out and making over the line statements.

Then he was stopped. Has he done anything similar since then? I doubt it. Why? Because the campaign and probably Obama himself decided it was unacceptable behavior.

Compare that to Geraldine Ferraro who continues to dismiss Obama and his chances because he's black.

Lastly, please answer the question, have you heard stories of the Obama campaign strategically using sexism as a reason why Clinton cannot win?

Now answer whether the Clinton campaign has strategically used racism as a reason why Obama cannot win.

Throughout. It is a reason why Clinton cannot win? No. But with the cooperation of the press and liberal blogosphere, the double standards have absolutely been something to tie her campaign's hands with.

The slightest *valid* criticism of Obama has brought charges of racism, *and* when you consider the strategic use of the internet, the use of feeding talking points to online activists that comes straight off the Obama campaign website(s) and email(s), there can be no other assumption than that this use of racism as an umbrella is known and approved of at the very top of the pyramid.

Right at the time when team Hillary had to pull out all the stops to stop Obama.

I believe that is right at the time when the Clinton campaign started telling superdelegates that a black man can't win. I believe that's why there was such an overreaction to the fairytale comment.

But I can't prove that.

There is enough proof to know that the Clinton campaign has been actively telling people that a black man can't win. Is it any surprise that some people feel the Clinton campaign has been racist or exploiting racism?

i can't wait to see the counter-argument to this

(note the use of SENATOR obama, and MRS. Clinton, ignoring her title, but not his. no, of course, no sexism at all)

Gender Issue Lives On as Clinton’s Hopes Dim


By JODI KANTOR
Published: May 19, 2008
With each passing day, it seems a little less likely that the next president of the United States will wear a skirt — or a cheerful, no-nonsense pantsuit.


Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is now in what most agree are the waning days of her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. To use her own phrase, she has been running “to break the highest and hardest glass ceiling” in American life, and now the presidency — even a nomination that once seemed to be hers to claim — seems out of reach.

Along with the usual post-mortems about strategy, message and money, Mrs. Clinton’s all-but-certain defeat brings with it a reckoning about what her run represents for women: a historic if incomplete triumph or a depressing reminder of why few pursue high office in the first place.

The answers have immediate political implications. If many of Mrs. Clinton’s legions of female supporters believe she was undone even in part by gender discrimination, how eagerly will they embrace Senator Barack Obama, the man who beat her?

“Women felt this was their time, and this has been stolen from them,” said Marilu Sochor, 48, a real estate agent in Columbus, Ohio, and a Clinton supporter. “Sexism has played a really big role in the race.”

. . . . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/us/politics/19women.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=clinton+campaign+sexism&st=nyt&oref=slogin

Look carefully at the article.

It starts by referring to Clinton as SENATOR Hillary Clinton. After the first mention, they then refer to her as Mrs. Clinton.

Now, what do they do with Obama. The first time they refer to him as SENATOR Barack Obama. After the first mention, they then refer to him as Mr. Obama.

Your analysis is off here.

It's about the candidate I believe has the capacity to bring the change I feel is needed to put this nation back to rights on so many issues. That candidate, for me, is Barack Obama.

There is no racism or sexism involved in this issue for me and it is really, really sad that such claims are part of any democratic primary.

Sexism in this race has been diffuse and the Clinton campaign has exaggerated and sometimes completely made up the charge, whereas her campaign has waged an insidious and often overt campaign to use Barack's race against him.

There is a leaked memo (I'm linking from the Huffington Post) that gives talking points on how to make the Clntons sound racist. It also shows pretty clearly that Donna Brazile is not neutral in this.

It's my personal opinion that the tone of the campaign changed around this time. The Clintons were painted as racist, and went on the defensive. Around then, Hillary was suddenly accused of going negative, but in reality, she was responding to attacks on her. And she got blamed. It's like they say in hockey - "initiate, don't retaliate". Because the player who retaliates gets the penalty, while the player who started it skates off unscathed.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/read-obama-campaign-memo-_n_81220.html

How can anyone be surprised that their campaign was accused of being racist?

Why did Ted Kennedy gets so riled up that he called Bill Clinton? Hmmmm.....

don't pee on our legs and tell us it's raining

open your eyes

I do not believe that the Clintons are racist, and I think one of the saddest legacies of this entire campaign is that people now seriously believe they are.

And I think Donna Brazile is as disingenuous as hell. I read a thread on another site claiming that she actively worked to make sure Michigan and Florida would be stripped of ALL their delegates, instead of half (which is what, according to Terry McAuliffe, DNC rules say - I have not looked this up to verify, but this was in his book, and well before this election).

The good news is, because obviously Michigan and Florida won't count and because the super delegates will decide it in favor of whomever is the nominee, Donna will be gone, according to her:

~Said Super-delegate Donna Brazile to CNN, "If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this."~

The primaries are not a GAME. They are real elections, with real-life consequences.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17897142
http://www.prisonactivist.org/cws/sharon.html

You'll probably see that a few white guys at the top get the lion's share -- because they have the power -- and a whole lot of white men and women in the middle get a little piece of the action.

In 1920, white women got the vote after 100 years of struggle. But they got it by promising Southern segregationists that they would use the vote to support white supremacy. Today, a divided women's movement still lacks the power to enact mandatory maternity leave for all working parents, despite the fact that women are more than 50% of all voters.