 |
15 May 2013
Benghazi and Lewinsky
On its face, the murder of Americans in Libya, including our ambassador, has absolutely nothing to do with … Read More.
|
|
10 May 2013
Mother Love
My daughter was born on Mother's Day, 23 years ago. It was the happiest day of my life — matched only, … Read More.
|
|
8 May 2013
The Drunk Guy in the Parking Lot
The report from the Arlington, Va., Police Department is, on its face, hardly newsworthy:
"SEXUAL BATTERY,… Read More.
|
|
The White Elephant in the Room
Would Barack Obama be where he is if he weren't black?
Would Hillary Clinton be where she is if she weren't a woman?
Would Geraldine Ferraro be where she is if her name had been Gerald?
I'm not even going to touch the first two, lest I be forced to resign from a position I don't have or given one so I can resign from it.
I'll stick with the third question, which Gerry Ferraro, who is my former boss and longtime friend, has answered thousands of times herself.
Walter Mondale picked her over Michael Dukakis (yes, he was the other choice) in 1984, because he wanted to shuffle the deck, change the dynamic, bring excitement and a sense of making history to what was already seen as a long-shot effort to unseat the very popular incumbent, Ronald Reagan.
In other words, he picked her because she was a woman. Gerald wouldn't have gotten it. Is there something wrong with that?
That doesn't mean she didn't deserve it. It doesn't mean she wasn't qualified. It just means gender matters. In her case, unlike every election before or since, it mattered in a way that resulted in a qualified woman getting the nod instead of a qualified man. And I don't think it's sexist to say that.
Geraldine Ferraro is many things — outspoken, spontaneous, sometimes outrageous, but always courageous, loyal and loving. I adore her. But that's not my point. One thing she isn't — I know this, and I think Barack Obama does, as well — is racist.
I don't think she in any way meant to put Obama down by pointing to his race as an essential element of his appeal. It is an essential element of his appeal. That doesn't mean he's the affirmative action candidate. It doesn't mean he's unqualified or undeserving. Recognizing that race matters is exactly what critical race theorists have been arguing for years to those who have claimed that we can or should be colorblind. Impossible, they've said all along. Is it now racist to recognize that they're right?
We need to be able to talk about race without forcing whoever brings it up to resign from whatever honorary position they may hold. It's the white elephant in the room that you're not supposed to acknowledge, but at which everyone stares, as it grows larger due to the forced silence. Guess what? There's a white elephant in the room. Or, to be politically correct, an elephant of some color, which we will not mention. A large, colorless elephant. Is it better if we leave it at that?
Calling someone a racist, accusing someone of racism, those are ways to end the conversation, not begin it. Simply denouncing someone that way doesn't tell us anything about why they're wrong, if they're wrong.
Somebody should have asked Geraldine Ferraro what she meant, and why, instead of denouncing her for saying it. Maybe she's right. Maybe she's wrong. But it's important to discuss it, and not outdo ourselves condemning her.
This is a unique and unprecedented campaign. A black man is running against a woman for the nomination of one of the two major parties. It's down to the two of them. Whoever wins is making history. Voters will confront a choice they have never before faced. It's a big deal. It does matter. Saying that is neither racist nor sexist. Letting people actually discuss what they mean, what it means to them, and why and how both race and gender do matter might actually help us move forward to the point where both matter less.
To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC. 
|
 |
Comments
|
16 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Hi Susan
I have a question? When women such as Geraldine or Hillary enter the high stakes political arena, what happens when they are forced to atone for their husband's sins and at the same time try to convince the public that they themselves would not sin? It is surely a dilemma peculiar to politicized women. Did Elizabeth Dole face this problem or did she somehow get to be evaluated on her own distinct merits?
I agree that Race and Gender are both skeletons in the American closet. I regret that Geraldine had to pay such a heavy price for bringing them out but I also believe that there was an element of poor taste in the way she did it.
Comment: #1
Posted by: robert j therriault
Fri Mar 14, 2008 4:40 AM
|
|
|
|
I do believe Geraldine was taken out of context by the media who supports Obama. The problem is the Clinton campaign has been using the race and gender card through out the primaries and it has come back to bite them. Barak has not and is where he is because of Hillary not that he is black. Most people I talk to are voting against Hillary because they do not want another Clinton in the White House. It is not that they don't want a woman it is the woman who is running that they do not want.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Kathaleen McCausland
Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:12 AM
|
|
|
|
Calling someone a racist, accusing someone of racism, those are ways to end the conversation, not begin it. Simply denouncing someone that way doesn't tell us anything about why they're wrong, if they're wrong.
That, Susan, is exactly how the left has treated the right for last 20 years. Funny, how it feels when it happens to your side...
Comment: #3
Posted by: cryan
Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:50 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: robert j therriault
Sorry, I disagree. You spoke freely as she always does. It's not poor taste when you speak the truth. Never.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Michael Travali
Fri Mar 14, 2008 4:37 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: cryan
I disagree. The Obama campaign and the media have twisted everything around to make it seem that Clinton is racist, just the opposite is true if you look at it straight in the eye.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Michael Travali
Fri Mar 14, 2008 4:39 PM
|
|
|
|
Geraldine Ferraro has been in the public eye long enough to know the rules of the campaign game. You never say anything that could in any way be construed as controversial. Especially if you are a staffer and not the candidate. The campaigns know she is not racist but many voters may not.
What she probably meant is that the "package" that is Obama is succeeding precisely because it is that "package" A unique blend of intelligence, education, family background, and mixed race heritage. (That last point may make voting for Obama easier for many whites--a baby step toward electing a candidate with both a black mother and father.)
I just heard Mark Shields on the Leher News Hour quote a Republican Senator who gave him his somewhat cynical summation of Obama's success. He said, "With one vote a white voter can erase 400 years of guilt."
Comment: #6
Posted by: barbara m. czaczynski
Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:47 PM
|
|
|
|
Maybe Geraldine is just speaking what others are thinking. Why can't we comment that Hilary is a female and Barack is negro/caucasian? Neither had a choice in the matter. Blacks and females have been and still are persecuted and considered second class citizens by many in this country and abroad. What's wrong with saying so? These are two brilliant people second to no one. America is watching and so is the world
Comment: #7
Posted by: liz
Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:14 PM
|
|
|
|
A "white elephant" is an item that isn't worth its upkeep, but can't be gotten rid of. An "elephant in the room" is a glaringly obvious issue or problem that everyone tries to ignore. Is Ms. Estrich deliberately mixing her metaphors here?
Comment: #8
Posted by: Scot Penslar
Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:39 PM
|
|
|
|
Please--What about Ms. Ferraro's identical comments about Jesse Jackson? Is every African American politician successful because he is black? And after the Clinton camp forced out Samantha Powers--who every campaign should be begging to be on their foreign policy staff--for an off-the-record statement, how should Obama have responded? Finally, Ms. Ferraro's condescending comments that Obama doesn't want to "antagonize people like her"? Ms. Ferraro probably meant that Obama was the whole package--but that wasn't what she said. She also said that they were attackng her because she was white. Please--our sympathies should not lie with this woman who is helping to drag the campaign discourse down--just as the Clinton campaign would like.
Comment: #9
Posted by: Allan
Sat Mar 15, 2008 8:09 AM
|
|
|
|
Okay, Ferraro is not a racist. She is a washed up loser and ought to keep her big trap shut if she can't say anything positive or useful. She got exactly the reaction she deserved. Actually, what she and we really deserve is for her to just go away and be completely ignored.
Neither she nor "Mrs." Clinton will ever be in the same class as Obama because those two just can't get it together to rise above their gender, their race, or their tired old approaches to losing political battles . They're both mired in the experience of being white female candidates with a pro-woman agenda, and that's as far as they will ever go.
The difference between them and Obama is one of attitude (not to mention talent). He is not a black candidate. He is a candidate who happens to be black. He has risen so far above playing the race card that the black community wouldn't embrace him at first because he wasn't "black enough." Of course they have do, because he has already made huge inroads into changing the black community's entire image of itself.
It amazes me how little discussion there has been about the enormous potential Obama has to close the huge gap that exists between blacks and whites (and between blacks and other racial/ethnic groups) in this country, and perhaps in the world. He speaks to the citizen of the universe in all of us, and he steadfastly refuses to assign any importance to race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other false distinction that serves to straightjacket our humanity.
I'm sorry to say this, but Clinton, with the help of Ferraro and their whole mentally calcified cadre of self-designated popes of the women's rights movement, will just keep on teaching that women deserve to whine about this, that, and the other thing when they don't get their way and brag about their muscularity when they do. You all don't have a clue about the elephant in the room because you've had your heads stuck so far down below ground level for so long you've just about lost your vision altogether.
Comment: #10
Posted by: Masako
Sat Mar 15, 2008 10:25 AM
|
|
|
|
Re comment #9, correcting a typo: The sentence should read: "Of course they have now, because he has already made huge inroads into changing the black community's entire image of itself."
Comment: #11
Posted by: Masako
Sat Mar 15, 2008 11:33 AM
|
|
|
|
What Ferraro said that if her name was Gerald she would not have been picked is true since she was picked. She didnt campaign, she didnt debate, she didnt put a brilliant team together, she didnt work hard on getting contributions. All she had going for her was that she was competent and her name was Geraldine. To use that argument against Obama who has worked hard and brilliantly in the campaign to get to where he is really smacks of not racism but rather sour grapes
Comment: #12
Posted by: steve b
Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:03 PM
|
|
|
|
Susan,
You're ignoring the deviously calculating methods of the Clintons. The most likely possible reason for Ferrarro's idiotic statements is that she and Billary decided that the message had to get out: "Obama is where he is because he's black!". That's Ferraro's message, boiled down, isn't it? Then Hillary waits a few days and says Ferraro should leave the campaign (as if anyone knew that she was previously a part of it).
This is the most likely possibility because the others are so patently fatuous. 1) Is Ferraro so stupid that she'd believe this, even though Obama won the 1st state, Iowa, a lilly-white state? 2) Is Ferraro so stupid she'd ignore all the politically-admirable traits of Obama, AND the fact that his "platform" is essentially the SAME as Hillary's? My God, if his platform is the same as Hillary's, why wouldn't the dumbed-down Democrat voters go for Obama? He has none of the ugly baggage that Hillary has!!
Susan, wake up and smell the coffee. Billary and Ferraro decided that this idiotic "message" had to get out!!
Comment: #13
Posted by: sbourg
Sun Mar 16, 2008 5:36 AM
|
|
|
|
In a world where you have to define yourself, I am as follows: To the left of Jesse Helms and to the right of John McCain in the political spectrum. I don't have a dog in the fight for the Democratic Presidential Candidate. All that I can tell you is that Ferrago's statement was not an indictment of being black or being a woman. I think in my opinion most Republicans agree with her. While I would not vote for Hillary as a woman, I would love to be able to vote for a woman like Margret Thacher. That does not mean I hate women. I don't think Hillary got to where she is because she is a woman. She got there because she was the spouse of Bill Clinton. Barrack got where he was because he is a promising young black politician and the liberal press wants to see him succeed. McCain got to where he is in part because he is the son of a Navy Admiral. All we have to do now is to decide who merits the top office in the USA. I sure hope it goes to the person that has earned the position. I am afraid this time around Obama needs more time before he joins Hillary and John in that club.
Comment: #14
Posted by: hcallaway
Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:46 PM
|
|
|
|
Susan,
I have the highest regard for you, for Geraldine Ferraro and even Hillary Clinton when it comes to women who have worked hard to pave the way for gender equality. I am an ardent male feminist.
I enthusiatically voted for the Mondale/Ferraro ticket and having a woman on the ticket was "icing on the cake" for the feminist in me.
This year, I am an ardent Obama supporter. Not because he is black, but because of his message and style of leadership. I believe him when he talks about bringing the country together on values we share rather then fighting on those things we differ on. Hillary Clinton has the fighter vision of leadership.
Being a fighter IS important in politics, but politics is a fine art and one needs to know how to work with one opponents to give what is possible done rather then fighting strictly for princple and getting nothing accompilished. Hillary's style of leadership was demonstrated in the 1993 healthcare DEBACLE where a DEMOCRATIC Congress rejected her in part due to her "I know what's best" attitude. She may have grown a bit since then, but I still believe that is her basic attitude toward leadership. Not dissimiliar from George W. Bush's leadership style.
Geraldine Ferraro may not be a racist, but her statements were racist and by bringing them up, she amplified race as a part of the campaign. She (and you quite frankly) are frustrated that the first viable female for the White House may be userpt by a man, a young man, a black man. This irritates the hell out of both of you and many women over 50 who have fought the hard battle for equality for decades. I understand that anger and frustration.
As qualified as Hillary Clinton is to be President, she is not entitled to the presidency just because she "waited her turn" or "so carefully planned her Presidential run since 2000 - including her cyncially politically calculating vote for the Iraq war to make her look tough enough to be President" or "her years as First Lady" or "fighting for children's welfare". etc. These to not entitle her, but they may aid her election.
But to denigrate a very talented person as Barack Obama who had the foresight to run a true 50 state campaign and consider ALL states important because he knew from day one this would be a delegate fight per Democratic Party rules and to not arrogantly assume the race would be over Super Tuesday just because a Democratic establishment said so is grossly unfair.
Barack Obama is currently the front runner for the nomination in a fair fight for delegates and if Hillary Clinton cannot convince enough voters to choose her over him, then that is her problem. It has nothing to do with her being a woman or him being black, FOR THE MOST PART.
Yeah there are some sexists and racists out there to be sure and I believe Hillary's gender and Barack's race are much more obstacles to their election then assets which is why Geraldine's comments are ludricrous and the words of a frustrtaed angry feminist.
Comment: #15
Posted by: Steve
Mon Mar 17, 2008 7:44 AM
|
|
|
|
Hello Susan, I totally agree with your comments about the issue of race and gender: it does matter. I also agree that the way to go is to ask why does it matter, when does it matter, to whom does it matter, how does it matter. Any mention of race and "racists" closely follows, the same goes for gender.
Comment: #16
Posted by: Lydia
Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
