I watched this debate the other day and will be showing it to a race, class, gender course on Friday. I am interested to see what other think about the usefulness of dialogues like these- solution oriented or just more polarizing?

I struggled with Steinem's arguments- I sort of see what she is saying, but I don't know that it is coming across very well. Harris-Lacewell does a really good job of summarizing tensions, and is overall, in my opinion, more articulate on the subject. And, I had no idea that she, along with others like Obama have rec'd DEATH threats?? Has anyone seen this in the news at all?

I was so impressed by Professor Harris-Lacewell! Such excellent analysis. Even in moments when I don't agree (I don't agree, for instance, that being First Lady means that white women have traditionally held power in the White House), her arguments were cogent and so smart.

But, oh, Ms. Steinem. She was particularly inarticulate, wasn't she, and uninsightful. And unable to say "I'm so sorry; I hadn't realized that was what I was implying, and I should have. I will be far more aware of the nuances of what I am saying when it comes to race in the future."

The problem is, I think, her context. Second-wave white feminism arose out of the new left, mainly young white people who were staunchly anti-war and pro-civil-rights; but the men of the New Left were personally and practically often horribly sexist. Because that group took racism seriously, New Left women could effectively get their points across to their peers using the kinds of comparisons that Steinem seems mired in making. But those comparisons have completely and utterly outlived their usefullness, which was in a very specific context, and Steinem needs to realize that.

Also...she needed to prepare better. She could have made much better more coherent arguments about the level of sexist vitriol directed at Clinton etc.

Steinem was difficult to understand, between all of her "you know"s and sentences started but not completed, it was hard to follow what she was saying. I, too, thought that Professor Harris-Lacewell was far more articulate and cogent in her arguments, but I also got the same thing that Steinem did when she was talking about white women who turned out to vote for Clinton: that somehow that can be attributed to racism, latent racism at least if not "naked racism." I think that's unfair, and makes as much sense as saying that black people will inevitably vote for Obama. Maybe I misunderstood what she was saying though.

Ugh. I hate HATE that this election has turned into this.

The, mainly white male, media has turned this into a "who suffered more," situation.

And I hate that so many older feminists are buying into it.

They should all stay the hell out and say, "if a black man wins or a white woman wins it will be a positive first in this country."

End. Of. Story.

Really interesting.

I don't like this underlying divisiveness between race/gender, "who is more oppressed" issue people have got going on because of this election. I'd just like to enjoy the fact that we have two interesting, intelligent people from underrepresented groups here, and that a vote for Obama doesn't mean not taking women's issues seriously, and a vote for Clinton doesn't mean not taking racism seriously (sorry for all the double negatives!)

Professor Harris-Lacewell is clearly much more eloquent in this dialogue. Though I am mildly offended that she seems to down play so much of women's issues (white or not) in favor of racial ones. Which is basically what Steinem did in her original analysis. This idea that somehow white women are always privileged, or have already had their place in the White House? I mean, seriously???

Gender and race, AND class intersect in so many interesting ways and we need to take all of them seriously.

And I do think they should have spoken more about the fact that sexist dialogue being thrown around by political pundits and political opponents has gotten very little coverage....this hurts everyone, all women (and men too), and it's important, regardless of whom you are going to vote for.

Good debate, though.

Also didn't know anything about Obama death threats. ALthough, I will go out on a limb and assume that Hillary Clinton has gotten a few of her own in her lifetime.......

Steinem should really have challenged the statement that "You cannot both claim this sort of role as independent woman making a stand on questions of feminism and claim that your experience begins as First Lady of Arkansas." That was disappointing.

Well, also, because Harris-Lacewell was making the same move in reverse by essentially saying "White women have always had power in the White House because of their roles as First Lady, but that doesn't count as political experience."

@ Lucy Bell: The death threats are why Obama got Secret Service protection last May.

I didn't see or hear the discussion, but in reading it, I was surprised at how angry Lacewell seemed at Steinem, and I thought her put downs of second wave feminists were tired critiques. Yes, the second wave didn't get it all right. But how many female Princeton professors were there before they came along? White women may have hired women of color when they went to work, but I think its worth pointing out that almost all employed Southern black women worked as domestics before second wave feminsm came around--hired by white women certainly, but because the white women worked. When white women entered the work force in droves in the 70s, African American women became LESS likely to work as domestics. And why is she blaming the racist hiring of domestics on women in the first place? Isn't it sexist to assume that women should be the ones to hire household help? Who do women of color hire when they need chidcare? Is it less oppressive for a woman of color to hire another woman of color? Should we only do within-race hiring for jobs we can't do ourselves? What about the plumber, is s/he oppressed too? I think she vastly underepresents how CLASS, race and gender all INTERSECT. I think Lacewell made a lot of great arguments, but I think some get buried in rhetoric.

Damn, Pram beat me to it- I agree that CLASS is DEFINITELY getting lost in the Oppression Olympics that seem to be going on here. Yes, race & gender overlap and interact in ways difficult for any of us to understand, but not once in the discussion between a highly educated Princeton Professor and a scion of the 2nd wave women's movement did the issue of how CLASS intersects with these identities arise. Otherwise, as some else put it on a different blog- the perfect candidate would be Condolezza Rice!!

If we don't all just shake hands and realize, as Margaret said, whoever wins the democratic nomination will make history we can all be proud of, the only one who wins will be the white guy the Republicans elect to PRESIDENT. No one for a minute should we take it for granted that the candidate who gets the democratic nomination will have an easy time getting elected to president. It will be an all-out WAR with everything the right can throw at us, they will use these divisions against us. We need to buckle down now and avoid the bickering. I swear if Obama wins, I am all for him. Same for Clinton.

And can we be honest- whoever gets the nod on the democratic side- they are both closely tied to various corporate interests- it's not like anyone is going launch the Socialist Republic of America any time soon. I think all the points about racism and sexism that have been brought up are all equally valid, but the way we are constantly framing these discussions in an oppositional binary is less than unproductive, it is the wedge that will destroy the nominated democratic candidate for the 2008 presidency. Already the MSM is trying to use the Latino votes that Clinton got as evidence of “Latino racism� against Obama. Mark my words, this is going to get UGLY.

Yes, yes to pram in the hall and Nazeafel!! Isn't stating that Latinos are racist when they do not vote for Obama like saying that folks are sexist if they do? Ugh! Stop pitting feminists against each other, I hate it. It’s like girl on girl rape and it’s starting to make me hate everyone!!! We are in the middle of one of the most profound movements of all time and it will all be for not if there is NEVER another viable candidate of race or gender running for president. We should be embracing both and be celebrating against one of the most divisive presidents in history! If we continue we are no better than them.
I know I have been really vocal in my support of Hillary and will continue to be, but Lordy I will vote for Obama if he gets the nod. So let’s all take a step back and breathe cause no matter what we are all in this together.

Just for the record- I can't believe that Obama getting death threats hasn't been major news. That's nuts. Though, from his campaign’s point of view I could understand them NOT wanting it to be news. As was noted he is mainly trying run a campaign that does not emphasize race and saying he’s being sent death threats would bring that back into the spotlight. In a way, I wonder if this is almost counterproductive to the anti-racism cause- his downplaying of race is making his running for the presidency seem “easier�, like race isn’t a problem anymore. Like we’ve made great advances and a black man can run for president without receiving death threats because he is black. Except we haven’t.

Yes, yes to pram in the hall and Nazeafel!! Isn't stating that Latinos are racist when they do not vote for Obama like saying that folks are sexist if they do? Ugh! Stop pitting feminists against each other, I hate it. It’s like girl on girl rape and it’s starting to make me hate everyone!!! We are in the middle of one of the most profound movements of all time and it will all be for not if there is NEVER another viable candidate of race or gender running for president. We should be embracing both and be celebrating against one of the most divisive presidents in history! If we continue we are no better than them.
I know I have been really vocal in my support of Hillary and will continue to be, but Lordy I will vote for Obama if he gets the nod. So let’s all take a step back and breathe cause no matter what we are all in this together.

Sorry for the double post. :-)

"You cannot both claim this sort of role as independent woman making a stand on questions of feminism and claim that your experience begins as First Lady of Arkansas."

That line bothered me as well. Perfectly illustrates Hillary's frustrating bind, and seems to discount the trend worldwide of women ascending through patriarchal hierarchy based on family connections. Also, just because GWB stole the last election, that for me is not a good reason to penalize Hillary based on a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton pattern. In my opinion, she is far and away the best candidate of all of them.

Er, I meant the 2000 election.

"hired by white women certainly, but because the white women worked."

This line from my ealier post should have said "but NOT because the white women worked." My point was that second wave feminism was not the cause of women of color working as domestics--that this was actually more likely to be a woman of color's sole avenue of employment before white women began flooding the workforce.

What a clusterfuck. I can't believe that this is happening.

Steinem was wrong to imply that experiences of sexism are worse in this country than experiences of racism. There is no way to empirically verify that - and what would be the point anyway?

But Professor Harris-Lacewell fell into the same spurious kind of argumentation. That there are more white women in congress than there are black men and women in congress - this is the problem? Wtf, I thought Republican and conservative Democrats were the problem. Just because there are a fraction more white women in the congress than African-Americans in congress doesn't a good argument make. Harris-Lacewell says there are "many more," but come on. We are talking fractions of fractions. We need more women, more Africa-Americans, and 23156% more African-American Women in congress.

Also, I completely missed the white feminist memo where I'm required to silence my black sisters when they talk about their sexual identities and needs.

How does this kind of bickering help either campaign? How does this help feminism or civil rights? How does this help black women?!?!

Also, since when does Gloria Steinem represent the entirety of the second wave? What is the "second wave" anyway? The way it's used now, the name is synonymous with "old white liberal women."

Steinem has been the spokeswoman/popular mass media face of second-wave feminism since the movement's beginnings, in large part because she was articulate, eloquent, and, no getting around it, very attractive.

The second wave of feminism in the US is the feminist movement that grew out of the New Left in the 1960s and 1970s; it encompasses the liberal, radical, marxist, lesbian, etc. feminists of that era. The first wave refers to suffragist activism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Starting in the 1990s, many feminists started to refer to themselves as being in a third wave. I don't really agree--at least not for myself. I just don't see the distinct new phase of mass organized activism that characterized the first two waves. And I don't think enough time has elapsed to mark a new, separate wave of activism. But plenty of feminists disagree with me on that, which is fine. I'm not really that picky about the name.

Guys, I'd bet serious money that ALL the presidential candidates get death threats from time to time, even the "macho" republican idiots. Politics brings out the worst in people, whenever you get into national prominence you are going to attract some haters.

That being said, its not surprising that Obama has probably gotten more than the others. I think a potential first black president brings out a lot more crazy violent people than the potential first woman president.

Does anyone take an ignoramus like Gloria Steinem seriously? Melissa Harris-Lacewell nailed her to the wall (rightly) for writing that black men got the vote in the 1860s while women didn't get the vote until 60 years later. Black men were murdered in droves for over a hundred years if they were suspected of trying to vote.

Steinem then compounds her stupidity by claiming that if black men who were being lynched had stuck up for feminism and shown solidarity with women, that fewer of them would have been strung up because (brace yourselves) racist rednecks might have restrained themselves from committing murder with because women would have been present!

Holy shit but Steinem is a low-grade moron! First of all, Ku Kluxers (with the support of most white women in the South) had no qualms about about blowing up little girls and burning them alive. Adult females like Viola Liuzzo were also murdered as "nigger lovers" as late as the march on Selma. The whole idea of feminists appealing to chivalry on the part of violent bigots would be funny were it not so pathetic. Finally, there are no current concerted efforts to strip women of the right to vote, while there ARE such efforts to stop blacks from voting (such as Georgia trying to bring back the poll tax, as well as "felon purges" of voter rolls).

Okay, I am bothered by all this race vs. gender stuff in part b/c they are simply not directly comparable -yes, they are both marginalization of specific groups, but the types of marginalization that goes on are /conceptually different/. I think one thing that may be valid, is that in the south many people are racist (meaning they dislike and/or fear blacks) and chauvanistic (meaning they want to "protect" women). So in that sense, in that certain culture, it's generally worse to be a minority, male or female, than a white woman. But I also think it's valid that among the educated liberal elite especially, white males are in general more concerned about and sensitive towards racism than they are towards sexism. Presumably this is related to the trend in the earlier New Left movement, mentioned above.

Also a major difference I think is that when violence against women happens, as it does very commonly (especially sexual violence -around 1 out of 4 women among every ethnic and socioeconomic group, after all, have been sexually assaulted), it is an overwhelmingly private affair. Not everyone agrees that it can be considered a hate crime against a group. Whereas if minority people are threatened or hurt by white supremicists, it's definitely acknowledged to be a crime against a group. Yet, both types of violence happen with some regularity, target groups, and both tend to impact groups of people as a whole.

A lot of the social forces that hold women back from a high standard and living and success do, in general, have to do with women's social roles and their place in families. Hence, it has a lot to do with individual interpersonal relationships. In the case of white oppression of minority people, that has a lot to do with actions of people together as groups, actions between people as strangers. I know both these groups experience both types of oppression to an extent, in addition to others more subtle or ingrained in the economic system due to historical forces, but I think overall the two are just not directly comparable.

I agree that yes, there are probably more people in this country who would very much not want a black president, just blatantly and outright. I think this attitude would probably come from a certain section of older, southern whites, in particular. However, I think sexist forces against Hillary are also widespread, maybe even moreso, if somewhat more subtle and unconscious. Like just for instance, I've heard a lot of people denigrating her as a priviliged white woman, and I never heard nearly as many people hating on the fact that most of our other candidates (i.e. generally white males) have always been just as priviliged (and b/c they were men, moreso).

I think one thing that /has/ to be taken into account, is the fact that among many young people, starting in the 1980s to be black was to be "cool". Now, I'm not denying that that carries it's own brand of racist implications and problems, but I /would/ like to point out that I believe that factor plays some role in Obama's overwhelming popularity among young people. I say this from personal experience listening to people, as well as things I've read on the web. The culture of young women saying they have crushes on Obama is definitely prevalent. And the wide popularity of the commercial where Obama says very vague things and is accompanied by some good music, would be another example of the sort of appeal he has to "trendiness" I think. I'm not saying that's the /only/ reason people support Obama -I think the war is a big deal for a lot of people too. But I think these social forces undeniably play a role.

And just to repeat what I've posted on feministing a few times regarding my politics, I would be happy to have either Clinton or Obama as president, but I am slightly supporting Clinton b/c of her positions on reproductive rights, health care, and her interest in increasing female representation across the board...

Here, this is beautiful, but it's also vague as hell:

http://www.dipdive.com/

And it's making the rounds among college kids.

Now maybe I'm wrong, by I just can't see a video like that flying for any white candidate much older than 30. And the fact that people see Obama this way, as someone you can turn into a music video (two now, I guess) makes me wonder if his race doesn't /help/ some -not among the general population, of course, but among young liberal people in particular. I'm not saying I'm right -just a theory...

I think it's important to recognize that racism and sexism are not problems unique to Southern states. Not to take this thread off topic...

“Holy shit but Steinem is a low-grade moron! First of all, Ku Kluxers (with the support of most white women in the South) had no qualms about about blowing up little girls and burning them alive. Adult females like Viola Liuzzo were also murdered as "nigger lovers" as late as the march on Selma. The whole idea of feminists appealing to chivalry on the part of violent bigots would be funny were it not so pathetic. Finally, there are no current concerted efforts to strip women of the right to vote, while there ARE such efforts to stop blacks from voting (such as Georgia trying to bring back the poll tax, as well as "felon purges" of voter rolls).�
There are so many things wrong with this that I feel like it must be a joke. Here are some statistics to think about:
• One out of every six American women have been the victims of an
attempted or completed rape in their lifetime (14.8% completed rape;
2.8% attempted rape). This is according to the Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women Survey National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1998.
• A total of 17.7 million women have been victims of these crimes.
• In 2003, nine out of every ten rape victims were female according to the 2003 National Crime Victimization Survey .
• While about 80% of all victims are white, minorities are somewhat more likely to be attacked:
Lifetime rate of rape/attempted rape for women, according to the Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women Survey:
• All: 17.6%
• White: 17.7%
• Black: 18.8%
• Asian/Pacific Islander: 6.8%
• American Indian/Alaskan: 34.1%
• Mixed Race: 24.4%
But yeah, sexism and violence towards women is like sooooo not important in the grand scheme of things. Is this not the oppression Olympics?
We have been having discussions here about how white feminist often fail to take other races into account when discussing issues. It is just as bad when African Americans forget that there are other races like Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, etc. to take into account when speaking of the nuances of racism. Also, its not like only white men who are sexist or have been violent towards women. Women really did fairly recently just get the right to vote and not just white women, ALL women. Also, there is still an attitude (and an accepted attitude at that) men have that when they come into money they can buy a house, a car, and a wife.
I will say one of the worst things I have seen come out of the internet is this way folks speak on message boards. I have read some of the most racist and sexist language on boards that were just so unexpected. I mean I think one of the biggest surprises of this election is that much of this speech is coming from the left, those folks who I just assume knew better.

Ninapendamaishi, it's funny that most of the people in that video are older than 30.

Firstly, just in response to how some folks have been bemoaning the "bickering" on the race/gender debate-- personally, I don't think it's *ever* "tired" or unproductive for feminists to interrogate their own politics and to be critical of each other. And I really disagree that we have to see these debates as some kind of fruitless exercise in "pitting feminists against each other." I think it's *amazing* that current events have enabled conversations between feminists like Harris-Lacewell and Steinem (and on public radio no less). I think certainly, when it comes to the campaign trail, most of us will end up wholeheartedly behind whoever gets the nomination-- but we should still be able to have these exchanges and critiques going on internally (and I think that conversations that happen on DN count as internal due to the lefty nature of the show and its listeners)... because that's how you build a vibrant and diverse movement, right? I think the "there's no oppression olympics" viewpoint, while certainly true, sometimes becomes an excuse for not having substantive, critical (not to mention uncomfortable) conversations about complicated issues like the intersection of race and gender. It's very easy to say "let's just agree to not say that anyone has it worse and have that be the end of the conversation"-- but I think that as feminists we can expect ourselves to understand that AND be able to go beyond it in order to really look critically at things like the history of feminism, its exclusions and its triumphs, and to forge a better, more comprehensive, more inclusive feminism for our future.

And on a different note, I think some of Harris-Lacewell's points have been a bit distorted in the comments here... she certainly never suggested that Steinem represents the whole of Second Wave feminism, I think she said pretty specifically that the sentiments of Steinem's op-ed represent the WORST of second wave feminism, which I personally think is fair (even charitable on Harris-Lacewell's part). I also think she was absolutely NOT suggesting that having white women in congress is a problem-- I think she was again making a pretty specific point about how white women have had access to a degree power because they're white, and that it was frankly inaccurate for Steinem to paint a picture of black men rising through the ranks of power while women remained helplessly stuck at the bottom. Also I really don't see how the point made by the commenter earlier about the continued attempted disenfranchisement of people of color was in any way meant to minimize the egregiousness of violence against women (I thought it was a pretty good point actually, but you know, correct me if I'm wrong).

JessicaNOW,

I know. BUT, I think the video will have the most appeal with an under-40 crowd. And I still don't think that video would work for the vast majority of white candidates Obama's age, because politicians are generally seen as "stuffy". And somehow Obama has managed to shake that image, and I think part of it may be his age, but I'm wondering if part of that is his race.

Also, I'd just like to add in to this debate that part of what bothered me is this attitude that white women can oppress black men, but not vice versa. Now, I'm not saying black men as a group oppress white women. But men as a group, including black men, can oppress women.

Okay to make this more personal, I was lucky enough to go to high school at a charter school where people were generally socially liberal and smart, certainly moreso than your average public school. We had a fairly diverse group racially, too, and although there was still a degree of self-segregation, most people also had a lot of friends from other races. And I can remember numerous lunchtime conversations with kids, who you know, were being kids talking about sex, making crude jokes and shooting the shit, etc. And I can remember /numerous/ conversations in which I sat there and listened to a small group of boys, including some extremely smart black males who I considered friends, telling me about how "the world would be a more peaceful place if women would just suck more dick".

I mean, that kind of stuff happened fairly frequently, and I think /that/ is a form of discrimination. I think one thing a lot of minority groups have, that women as a group have never really managed, is a tendency to recognize discrimination towards their group and to support each other as a group...

(and by numerous conversations, I mean numerous conversations /similar/ to the quote above. That particular quote just occured in one conversation, I think.)

talknormal, to quote Harris-Lacewell:

"This is actually a standard problem of second-wave feminism, which, although there have been twenty-five years now—oh, going on forty years, actually, of African American women pushing back against this, have really failed to think about the ways in which trying to appropriate black women’s lives’ experience in that way is really offensive, actually." "while Barack Obama is getting death threats, basically lynching threats on him and his family, these are—for a second-wave feminist with an understanding of the complexity of American race and gender to take this kind of position in the New York Times struck me as, again, the very worst of what that feminism can offer—in other words, division."

It does seem to me that Lacewell is implying Steinem (and Stinem's decades-old literary devices) are the whole of Second-Wave Feminism. Listening to the video, and Lacewell's tone certainly made it seem that way to me.

And, again, Steinem's implication that black men somehow have it easier than women - and especially if we are ultimately talking about Hillary Clinton - was wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. I just don't see how Harris-Lacewell's rhetoric is any better.

"It does seem to me that Lacewell is implying Steinem (and Stinem's decades-old literary devices) are the whole of Second-Wave Feminism. Listening to the video, and Lacewell's tone certainly made it seem that way to me."

Really, why? Saying it's a standard problem (I think it'd be difficult to disagree that race issues haven't been a recurring theme in 2nd wave and post-2nd wave feminism) seems like a far cry from calling it the whole of the movement. And certainly she was critical of Steinem, but I mean, they were having a radio debate. Heh, actually now I read the quote, I thought H-L gave Steinem more credit than I would have for her ability to understand "the complexity of American race and gender." As for her tone, I remember Harris-Lacewell sounding angry but geez, I can't really blame her for that.

The quote I posted above and this quote is where I think Harris-Lacewell divorced herself from the usually thoughtful, nuanced analysis she gives.

"Part of what, again, has been sort of an anxiety for African American women feminists like myself is that we’re often asked to join up with white women’s feminism, but only on their own terms, as long as we sort of remain silent about the ways in which our gender, our class, our sexual identity doesn’t intersect, as long as we can be quiet about those things and join onto a single agenda. So, yes, I absolutely agree, we must be in coalition, but it must be a fair coalition of equals."

Have there been problems with "second and third wave feminism" (whatever those labels mean)? Undoubtedly. But to imply that there is a common "agenda" and there are people who go around enforcing that "agenda" is not accurate and unhelpful. In fact, it's divisive and an (unintentional) insult to people like Shirley Chisolm and Pauli Murray, among others.

"But, oh, Ms. Steinem. She was particularly inarticulate, wasn't she, and uninsightful. And unable to say 'I'm so sorry; I hadn't realized that was what I was implying, and I should have. I will be far more aware of the nuances of what I am saying when it comes to race in the future.'"

Well said, EG! What has been most disappointing about this situation is not that Steinem made this misstep in the first place, but that Steinem, an intelligent woman, is acting clueless as to how anyone could have "misunderstood" her op-ed. There is this constant defense of the article, complete with the parsing of non-offensive phrases and the minimizing of the most offensive ones.

We all have biases and fail to keep them in check sometimes. That's not a crime, unless of course you fail to recognize, take responsiblity and apologize for your biases.

Ninapendamaishi--I just want to co-sign with the other poster who pointed out that racism is neither confined to the south or to older people. That false meme is one of the things that keeps progressives from addressing real issues of bias when they arise.

I agree that in the same way that white men and women oppress people of color, both white and black men oppress women. I've not heard too many black feminists argue otherwise.

"But to imply that there is a common "agenda" and there are people who go around enforcing that "agenda" is not accurate and unhelpful. In fact, it's divisive and an (unintentional) insult to people like Shirley Chisolm and Pauli Murray, among others."

Wait, so you think feminists like Harris-Lacewell *shouldn't* express their sense that they've been silenced by white women-- because it's bad for feminism? Isn't that sentiment itself an act of enforcing a particular agenda? (I mean, you're essentially saying, 'It's unhelpful and divisive to accuse us of not wanting you to talk about race. So stop saying that stuff about race.' ... right? And that's exactly the kind of phenomenon H-L is describing. Do tell me if I'm misunderstanding.)

Sorry for the back-and-forth, all (I don't want to take up too much space but I do care about this stuff).

"Ninapendamaishi--I just want to co-sign with the other poster who pointed out that racism is neither confined to the south or to older people. "

I didn't say it was. I simpy meant that it's concentrated there, as in, the people who wouldn't vote for Obama /because/ he's part black, are going to be concentrated in that demographic.

Now, I think if Obama was campaigning by prioritizing racial issues, or controversial things like affirmative action, there would be more white liberals who wouldn't want to vote for him. But, he's not. And it's a well-studied fact according to a lot of Afro-American studies political scientists that overall white people /will/ support a black candidate, so long as he puts racial issues on the back-burner.

And if you're wondering whether I'm BSing the part where I said what "a lot of Afro-American studies political scientists" would say, I got that idea from a panel I went to where Cornell West spoke along with 4 of his colleagues...

"Wait, so you think feminists like Harris-Lacewell *shouldn't* express their sense that they've been silenced by white women-- because it's bad for feminism? Isn't that sentiment itself an act of enforcing a particular agenda? (I mean, you're essentially saying, 'It's unhelpful and divisive to accuse us of not wanting you to talk about race. So stop saying that stuff about race.' ... right? And that's exactly the kind of phenomenon H-L is describing. Do tell me if I'm misunderstanding.)"

I couldn't agree with you more, talknormal. You get it!

Smartorange, how many of the women who were sexually assaulted in your statistics were attacked because they were involved in the political process? While trying to vote? While running for office? While leading demonstrations?

"Wait, so you think feminists like Harris-Lacewell *shouldn't* express their sense that they've been silenced by white women-- because it's bad for feminism?" Nope, that isn't what I said at all. And implying that I did is slightly insulting. What I said was that characterizing the issue in such a "conspiracy theory" way is not accurate and does nothing to move feminism forward. Do I think that entire groups of women have been marginalized within the feminist movement, especially historically? Undoubtedly! Emphatically yes! Do I think it is as simplistic as Harris-Lacewell implies? No. Emphatically no!

talknormal, on an tangential note, I’m interested to hear what you think of Harris-Lacwell’s blog: http://melissaharrislacewell.com/Blog/
In it, Harris-Lacewell compares Clinton to Scarlett O’Hara because Clinton is a privileged white women. She pushes the analogy a bit further, saying that "black women are "refusing to play mammy to Hillary."

I’m not a die-hard Hillary fan, in fact I didn’t first align with her during my caucus. But this characterization seems over-the-top.

It also occurred to me that Obama went to a Swiss boarding school in Indonesia, then to Columbia, then to Harvard Law. The “privileged game� seems kind of silly.

Also, Harris-Lacewell forgets that an overwhelming majority of Latina women went for Hillary. And that black women went for Obama and Latina women for Hillary doesn't say much in and of itself. Why can't we have a deeper, more thoughtful analysis? Does this mean that folks who didn't vote for Obama are racists? Does it mean that Obama had a better GOTV campaign than Clinton in the black community? Does it mean that Clinton will not represent Black Women's best interests? Does it mean that Clinton simply has better name recognition among Latino/as? Does it mean that Clinton should fire her husband? Are church-going women in the south slightly sexist (read the NY Times article below)? Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/us/politics/14carolina.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

http://jackandjillpolitics.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-churchgoing-black-women-like-obama.html

http://blackwomenforobama.org/

Has anyone actually polled black women using substantive questions?

On a different note, do young people continue to hold the "mammie" stereotype? Methinks that's probably outdated.

First off, Marshall, you're mistaken if you think that women aren't subjected to sexual violence and terrorism in retribution for political action.

But second of all, yes, most victims of such violence aren't trying to run for office. They're targeted merely because they exist while being female. Are you suggesting that's better than being targeted for racist violence and terrorism for existing while being black?

calisoulsista,

It appears you and I had different interpretations of what people meant to say in the interview, then. Because it seems to me that H-L was saying that white women, because of being white, have more opportunities than black men and oppress black men significantly moreso than vice versa, and I feel things are hardly that clear cut. And I don't think anyone is trying to silence talking about race (or gender). I think rather, my point was that it doesn't make much sense to me to talk about race VS. gender, as though the two issues and the way they play out in our political process was somehow directly comparable (or as if women of color could compare those to aspects of themselves and analyze one as more important in their life than the other -b/c no one can know truly what it is to go through life as a different race or a different gender than what they are).

Also, I am of the opinion that Obama and Clinton are both politicians and are extremely similar on issues, so I just don't understand that support of Obama while hating Clinton (which seems to me a more common attitude among liberals than a hating of Obama)

EG, the subject is the political process and the upcoming elections, not violence in general. I haven't heard of women's groups being firebombed by misogynist thugs for registering female voters, nor have I heard of women being raped for trying to vote. Susan B. Anthony wasn't gunned down like Martin Luther King, either.

There is an ugly strain of misogyny and threats of violence aimed at women who are so much as believed to be involved in politics (as the Dixie Chicks can testify ), but to liken that to real assassinations, bombings and lynchings of would-be black voters and those who dared to aid them is witlessly obscene.

Also, I am of the opinion that Obama and Clinton are both politicians and are extremely similar on issues, so I just don't understand that support of Obama while hating Clinton (which seems to me a more common attitude among liberals than a hating of Obama) --Ninapendamaishi

Probably because Obama didn't vote for the Iraq War, nor did he vote to give Numbnuts the ability to attack Iran. Clinton did, and deserves the hostility of liberals.

Meh. Obama voted for the Patriot Act, so it's six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Marshall, I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make, probably because I wasn't being very clear about it, so I'm going to try to clarify what I wanted to say.

Male violence against women is very much about preventing us from participating in public life. That participation can take a variety of forms, including sexual expression, financial independence, and political participation. Because the violence in question is usually within the home (men do not have to find central meeting spots in order to do violence to women whose participation in public life they find noxious), we have no way of disentangling these motives, but the huge and disproportionate amount of violence women suffer does indeed limit our ability to participate in the political process. Women who would otherwise have been able to be part of the political process have been prevented from doing so. They haven't been prevented from doing so in the same way that whites tried (and succeeded) to prevent blacks from being part of the political process, but that doesn't mean it wasn't happening.

How did Obama vote for the Patriot Act (which was passed in 2002) when he wasn't even in Congress until 2005?

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060216-floor_statement_2/

Thanks, JessicaNOW.

That Patriot Act charge is one of my least favorite spin-distortions of the Clinton campaign. Obama and other democrat senators did a lot to try to change the original act when it was up for renewal and Bush and co. were trying to make the Act permanent and EXPAND its powers, and HRC, by contrast, sided with the republicans to limit the debate necessary to put more safeguards Obama and the others were backing in place. While he was trying to delay the renewal in order to change the thing, she was voting to just push it through without the changes. Obama was among most other democrats (but not HRC!) trying to do even more to correct the problems with the Patriot Act when the republicans (and HRC with them) voted to shut down the debate. At that point, most of the democrats, Obama included, had to take what they could get and vote for what they had managed to change up until then. So it takes a special kind of nerve for her campaign to then use that complete failure, on her part, to even *attempt* protect civil liberties in this process, siding against the majority of her party and voting with the republicans who wanted to preserve the Patriot Act unamended, as a campaign tool to try to make him look "inconsistent." It's shocking, really.

So no, EG, it's really, really not "six in one."

More on how this half-truth was spun here:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/266/

At that point, most of the democrats, Obama included, had to take what they could get and vote for what they had managed to change up until then.

Right, sure. If he's so principled, he could have refused to vote for it at all. Not that I'm particularly outraged--you can make more or less the same argument for HRC's vote for the war. Every congressperson voted for the war, except for Barbara Boxer and a couple others. And do you think HRC would be in a position to run if she hadn't?

Further, if Obama wasn't in Congress until 2005, it's hardly a point in his favor that he didn't vote for the war, is it? He didn't have the option. If he'd been in office at the time, he would have bowed to the Republican patriot-tub-thumping just like all the rest of 'em.

No, these two issues and the procedures involved are really separate, and conflating them doesn't aid understanding, EG. Implying that all politicians bend eventually by nature is pretty cynical, too, and in this case, stands against the facts as we know them.

Every congressperson voted for the war, except for Barbara Boxer and a couple others.

This is a gross mischaracterization. 42 percent of democratic senators, including, yes, Barbara Boxer, voted against the Iraq resolution. That is hardly "a couple." Of those, by my count, two are no longer in office, one died, but the rest are still senators. So obviously doing so has not damaged their political life significantly. Perhaps if she had her eye on the presidency all along, she might have been concerned that Hawk Republicans in a future presidential race might use it against her, but is that really the kind of ethics we're holding up as reasonable when you're voting to send a nation to war?

Check the facts here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

By contrast, Obama, when he was serving in the Illinois senate, delivered this speech, at a time when opposition to the war was still controversial, and could have cost him politically as well. In this speech ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution ) there's very little ambiguity on where he stands. So while it's true that you can't compare one-for-one the vote of a US senator to a state one (US senators have access to information and discussions that state senators might not be a part of), given that 42 percent of his party in the US senate voted against the war, and voiced this vehement opposition in his speech on the state level, I believe it's more than reasonable to conclude that he would have been among the slightly-less-than half of democrats who did NOT vote to authorize the war. HRC, on the other hand, must stand by her record as being among the only slightly more than half of democratic senators who voted YES, "disarm, or BE DISARMED."

Conflating this with the proceedings for the Patriot Act isn't useful at all, since the Iraq war resolution wasn 't a matter of terms, compromises or details. The Patriot Act, by contrast, is all about specifics. The ONLY reason Republicans rewrote ANY of the worst parts of it is because enough democrats stalled and stopped it long enough that it wouldn't be renewed at ALL if they didn't change it. So they had to take its teeth out a bit with the notion that some democrats WOULD accept it then. If all democrats played a hard line and refused the whole thing on principle, including the protections that most of them (including Obama and Clinton) believed were necessary (and their constituents believed were necessary) either it would have been passed with NO compromises in place, and possibly made permanent, or it would have failed. That is too much of a high stakes game when you have the option of passing something that continues the conversation, and puts a few protections in place for now. So it was a compromise, one that could have been better even now if republicans and 14 dems with HRC would have held out a bit longer and not stopped the debate.

No one voted to go into Iraq "halfway." You can't compromise on war. That was a "yes" or "no" question. But the patriot act renewal was a compromise with an eye to the future, when it must be renewed, reworked and revisited. So the two things are VERY different, and the only thing they have in common, ironically, is HRC's role in being on the wrong side of both.

Oops, sorry, I accidentally pasted the wrong link for Obama's 2002 speech against the war in Iraq. Here it is:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

Well Marshall, for whatever it's worth to you, when Chelsea Clinton spoke at my school she explained that her mother was the first congress person to start pressuring the Department of Defense to make public the plans they claimed to have for ending the war in Iraq. So supposedly she played a pretty important role in getting them to admit to other congress members that they actually /didn't have/ plans.

Senator Clinton now cares about making sure that any efforts to resolve the conflict in Iraq are international in nature, and that refugees are taken care of. My biggest fear now, personally, is not how quickly we can get US troops out of there, but what we can do to minimize violence against innocent civilians, such as women.

Obama and Clinton's plans for Iraq now are very similar, and I would just say that Clinton's seems slightly more nuanced.

It's true -Clinton is somewhat sympathetic to the war on terror. Honestly though? As someone who took some international relations classes at a school with very real links to very important politicians, I am convinced that most decisions made at high levels like that /are/ extremely nuanced and a lot more information and thought goes into them than us civilians are generally aware of.

You may or may not agree with all of Clinton's positions, but I am convinced listening to her she is a very smart lady with a very nuanced understanding of domestic and international policy. I would probably like Obama better if he didn't often sound considerably vaguer to me when he's discussing his views on things. And the reason /that/ scares me, as much as anything, is b/c it just makes him sound like the Democrat version of the way George W ran his 2000 election. Seriously. He used the exact same "I'm from outside Washington. I want to fundamentally change things. I'm a uniter" type of rhetoric. It's just one approach politicians can take... doesn't make them inherently bad or good people or leaders.

(Of course, I /do/ think Obama is considerably smarter than George W and would make a better prez)

Perhaps if she had her eye on the presidency all along, she might have been concerned that Hawk Republicans in a future presidential race might use it against her, but is that really the kind of ethics we're holding up as reasonable when you're voting to send a nation to war?

It's the kind of ethics that's the reality of how politics work. I'm of the opinion that HRC has had her eye on the presidency for a very long time, and is quite aware of the accusations levelled against recent Democratic candidates of being "soft," not firm or take-charge in a military situation, etc. Especially when that candidate is a woman, she is going to be vulnerable to lots of that crap, and I expect that indeed she was thinking ahead about that. Contemplate our recent electoral history for a minute and look at the swift-boating of Kerry and the defeat of Max Cleland on the grounds that he was insufficently devoted to "homeland security." It's very nice and all that the tide seems to be turning, but it's not the kind of thing that a smart, experienced politician should bank on.

By contrast, Obama, when he was serving in the Illinois senate, delivered this speech, at a time when opposition to the war was still controversial, and could have cost him politically as well.

How convenient for him, then, that he wasn't in a position where he had to be accountable. You can't have it both ways, you know. You can't claim that HRC could have easily voted against the war without running serious political risks because 42% of her party did and then turn around and claim that Obama's speech--as a state senator, no less, with no obligation to back up his words--was taking a political risk.

Obama wasn't even at a national level yet; he didn't have to worry about anybody but his constituency of Chicago's South Side, and urbanites, esp. college students are a significantly left-er group than the rest of the US. HRC was already at a national level, and as I say, I'm certain she was already angling for the presidency. She was no doubt concerned about how her actions were going to play out to a much broader range of voters.

So, you think Obama's compromises are defensible but not Clinton's. I'm not convinced.

So, you think Obama's compromises are defensible but not Clinton's. I'm not convinced.

When you oversimplify like that, it's easy to not be. As I said before, in detail and with sourced evidence (but apparently not effectively enough to avoid pat responses like this) going to war is not a "compromise." It's sending people to die, or not. It's giving the president permission to bomb a city, or not. Hillary voted to give Bush the power to do that. In hindsight, in the Hollywood debate, she said she and others who voted for it had NO idea that Bush would use this power they voted to GIVE him so irresponsibly. (Which prompted Wolf Blitzer to ask the really disgustingly gendered question of whether she was saying she was "naive"...) So by her account, she simply made a choice that didn't take into consideration what the president could/would do. In other words, the wrong choice, giving a warhawk like Bush too much power to do too much damage, but she can't/won't even say the word "wrong." That's so frustrating to watch, and really reads as an accountability issue on her part.

I'm certain she was already angling for the presidency. She was no doubt concerned about how her actions were going to play out to a much broader range of voters.

Obama IS accountable for everything he said about the war. It's a matter of public record, it was a public address that would be written on his resume for life, and hello, he's running for president now, too. There's no way the idea of running for president in the future was unthinkable to him then. HRC could have taken the same position and she would not have had to be on the wrong side of history today. Of course I agree that the pitfalls of seeming "soft" are more pronounced for a woman in politics, and that is really shitty and challenging to overcome, but that alone, to me, does not justify voting to go to war to counteract that public image.

If what you're saying is that a poltician, if she's a woman, should be understood and forgiven for authorizing soldiers to die, and kill and bomb civilians of another nation if she's concerned about her presidential career in this one, we'll have to agree to disagree on that. It's not that I didn't understand that she might have done that (and I would hope that she actually didn't, that she voted her conscience, as she said she did, and simply made an error in judgment) it's simply that I think, if she, or anybody, did, it's the very definition of immoral self-interest.

On the other hand, working some fixes and trying to get them all in on a badly-flawed Patriot Act as a temporary measure simply doesn't compare ethically as a political sacrifice, if indeed that's what we're talking and not just bad judgment on HRC's part (concerning BOTH, again). It's not just that I think Obama is hot or something and like his "compromises" better. Makes me think of Oprah: "don't play me small." Sheesh.

ough to avoid pat responses like this) going to war is not a "compromise." It's sending people to die, or not. It's giving the president permission to bomb a city, or not.

Yes. And in the world of national high-level politics, it is indeed about political compromises and wheeling and dealing. That's not right; it's not morally good; it's not pretty. But it's true.

It's a matter of public record, it was a public address that would be written on his resume for life, and hello, he's running for president now, too. There's no way the idea of running for president in the future was unthinkable to him then.

Perhaps. In the future. But a State Senator is very different from a US Senator who is already a national figure. I highly doubt he thought he'd be running for president that soon. He'd only been eligible age-wise for a couple of years. And again--he's not much accountable for it, is he? He wasn't in a position to actually have do to anything back then, just talk.

HRC could have taken the same position and she would not have had to be on the wrong side of history today.

Really? So she'd be one of the many politicians at a national level at the time of the war who voted against the war who is making a strong, creditable run at the presidency. Well, color me surprised. Again, you can't have it both ways.

If what you're saying is that a poltician, if she's a woman, should be understood and forgiven for authorizing soldiers to die, and kill and bomb civilians of another nation if she's concerned about her presidential career in this one, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

What I'm saying is that's what politicians, regardless of gender, do. They are the definition of immoral self-interest--all of them. I said nothing about "forgiveness"--all I have been saying is that it's absurd to hold HRC to a standard that no president in the second half of this century has met.

It's not just that I think Obama is hot or something and like his "compromises" better.

...what? That's all you--I said nothing about hotness. I...don't care about it. But yes, it is that you think his compromises are morally defensible while hers are not--and that in the same position as HRC, he wouldn't make the same odious compromises she would. That's a fine opinion. It just doesn't match my experience of reality.

Ninapendamaishi, the idea of making Iraq "international" is a joke and has been since Numbnuts ordered the invasion (the invasion Hillary voted for) back in 2003. No other countries are going to send in troops (in fact, Numbnuts' allies have been bailing one by one) and relief organizations can't do a damn thing in that charnel house of a country with getting themselves killed. To the extent that violence is down slightly from what it was a year ago, it's mainly the result of Shiites killing off every Sunni in town (and vice versa). In other words, the US troops have nothing to do with it.

Nor SHOULD they have anything to do with policing another country's citizens. The idea that Marines should die occupying a country to prevent some Iraqi brute from beating his wife, or to allow Iraqi women to wear pants is not only absurd, it simply won't happen.

So, you think Obama's compromises are defensible but not Clinton's. I'm not convinced. --EG

Have Obama's compromises lead to the slaughter of close to a million people in Iraq? To 4000 dead servicemen and women? To thousands more being dismembered and disfigured?

I recommend this article for anyone who wants a good idea of what will certainly happen if Hillary Clinton is elected (and might happen if Barack Obama wins). The leadership of the Democratic Party threw the anti-war crowd under the bus and can't wait until Clinton is sworn in so they can do it again.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18349197/the_chicken_doves

What I'm saying is that's what politicians, regardless of gender, do. They are the definition of immoral self-interest--all of them. I said nothing about "forgiveness"--all I have been saying is that it's absurd to hold HRC to a standard that no president in the second half of this century has met.

Wow. So because of what they ARE, what we know they DO, it's absurd to hold them accountable for their decision making.

But yes, it is that you think his compromises are morally defensible while hers are not--and that in the same position as HRC, he wouldn't make the same odious compromises she would. That's a fine opinion. It just doesn't match my experience of reality.

And here we are gratefully (for me, anyhow, given what you said above) agreed.

PS--we haven't had the second half of this century yet. I think that's sorta Obama's point. ;)

"The idea that Marines should die occupying a country to prevent some Iraqi brute from beating his wife, or to allow Iraqi women to wear pants is not only absurd, it simply won't happen."

Maybe it won't happen, but I don't see anything absurd about our marines trying to prevent Iraqi women from being killed. What about Obama's rhetoric of uniting as people? I believe in acting as a world citizen. Iraqi women don't deserve to be tortured and killed, and I think we have some obligation to try and ameliorate things b/c the US is partially responsible for conditions as they are now. /That/ I think, is the moral way to view things.

"PS--we haven't had the second half of this century yet. I think that's sorta Obama's point. ;) "

Fine. You're a believer. But you /do/ realize that what Obama is saying is nothing new, right? You /do/ realize that that rhetoric has been used by lots of other politicians, who wound up far less popular going out than they were coming in, right? As long as you acknowledge that perspective, I have no problem with you hoping it will turn out different this time...

Fine. You're a believer.

Someone make it stop. Can people stop painting Obama supporters as Moonies? How is crap like that useful for anyone? It shows a really superficial understanding of BOTH campaigns and the wealth of information out there, if you just. Go. Look.

No, I'm not "a believer" in the sense you're implying. A believer of rhetoric. A believer of a brand-new-first-time-on-Earth-savior...a believer in little green/great black men.

I gave a well reasoned argument for why I don't think Obama would have voted to allow Bush to invade Iraq had he been in the senate at the time. I gave examples of the slightly-less-than-half of all senate democrats who took the opportunity to do exactly that. And now I'll add the example of John Edwards, who at least admitted that voting for Iraq was a mistake and assumed responsiblity, something you haven't heard HRC say. I have stated how this senate vote mistake (which some didn't make) coupled with HRC's neglect of Edwards-style accountability really turns me off. And that's just one reason, but I was quite explicit about it.

I ended it with a little pun (note the winkie indicator of humor) on EG's typo that happened to coincide perfectly with the "21st century" rhetoric Obama keys his campaign on. What anyone "believes" is always a gamble, but the side someone comes down on in this case, might, in fact, be based on the record of each candidate, and I gave this forum every reason to suspect that mine was. So insinuating otherwise is way out of line, even if you didn't get the joke. Eventually, Ninapendamaishi, in this way, you'll vote based on what you "believe," too. Maybe you'll be prepared to share with us your reasons in concrete form when that time comes as well.

I got the joke.

I've shared my reasons in concrete form before. I prefer Clinton's health care plan. I like her plans for making sure low-income women have access to affordable contraception choices. I like that she supports gay rights. And then there are the host of positions I like, for which Obama's are more or less the same.

I also like that throughout Clinton's career she has done things for women's rights and child welfare, and that she was involved in the Civil Rights movement on her campus in college (although Obama's experience /there/ is certainly more expansive). I also like the fact that Clinton is familiar with the interworkings of national government, and has a lot of specific suggestions for govt reform (ending of no-bid govt contracts that are not made widely public, etc.)

I think these reasons are pretty concrete. They may not be a huge difference from Obama, but that's just my point. There isn't a huge difference between the two.

I also like that, upon reading her policy positions on all the issues on Clinton's website, she is generally more specific, if only a little, than Obama. I'd rather vote on what I know than on what I don't know -and the fact she's been a politician longer just gives me a better chance to know Hillary Clinton.

So because of what they ARE, what we know they DO, it's absurd to hold them accountable for their decision making.

It's about what you think is realistic. I don't think your expectations are realistic. You do. That's fine.

But you /do/ realize that what Obama is saying is nothing new, right? You /do/ realize that that rhetoric has been used by lots of other politicians, who wound up far less popular going out than they were coming in, right?

And that, in a nutshell, is my point. Thank you, Nina. I fundamentally don't buy this business of, as I actually heard Obama say on Super Tuesday, "This time will be different." It won't. It'll be just like all the other times. Obama may be for real in his ideals; he may not be. It doesn't really matter. If he gets into office, he'll find himself under exactly the same kind of pressures that produce politicians like HRC. And he'll end up making exactly the same kinds of decisions.

I don't trust Obama's rhetoric because of its reliance on big baggy abstract concepts like "change" and "vision." Those are not the words I care about hearing. They're fundamentally meaningless--anybody can promise change and vision because how're you going to hold someone to those promises?

I tell you what--the Vietnam war ended for two reasons: the Viet Cong were winning, and there were massive continuing protests in the streets. That's not happening here. People aren't taking to the streets; there aren't mass protests and civil disobedience; nobody is seriously challenging power. But you expect entrenched politicians to make the radical moves anyway? That's not how it works. If, as a country and a people, we aren't prepared to take massive action against the war--and no, that one big international protest isn't sufficient, we can't run around acting outraged when our politicians notice that lack of commitment on our part.