Seriously. There is nothing more to be gained by raking this over further. Please just stop.

I wish Ferraro would offer solutions instead of endlessly declaring how impossible it will be to heal.

Oh, she does offer a solution: she'll commission a study to determine whether some of the media crossed an ethical line that only she's allowed to draw, and incidentally, she's already determined that they have.

FWIW, the Shorenstein Center recently did a study on press coverage of Obama and HRC. http://www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/research_publications/reports/Character%20and%20the%20Primaries%20of%202008.pdf

Oy Vey, we need to step back here. Ferraro is telling us things we need to hear, about issues we need to address, and hard truths we would be unwise to run away from.

1. There are lots of women, especially of our parent's generation, who feel as though Clinton was treated unfairly. And, frankly, they have a right to feel that way.

2. It's also the case - a separate case - that Reagan Democrats believe there is such a thing as "reverse racism" *blech* We can't pretend that this sentiment doesn't exist. And I hope the Obama campaign isn't shying away from dealing with this problem.

So these are the two things I hope Obama won't ignore: (1) some groups of Democratic women are actually claiming they will vote for McCain because of the way Clinton has been treated, and (2) however misguided, white Reagan Democrats feel "discriminated against" - and it isn't just African-Americans, but also Latinos, etc.

Obama has acknowledged #2, and has not done such a good job on talking about it ("clinging to guns and religion") in this cable-television-centric world. The problem remains - he needs to continue to find ways to deal with it. I sincerely hope he can. We can't have another anti-woman, non-moderate Republican in office.

But getting back to Ferraro, I don't see anything wrong with what she wrote. Are feminists supposed to shun her now? Are we supposed to ignore the millions of voters who harbor strange notions of "reverse racism," and simply cross our fingers and hope those people don't vote? Cuz I didn't get that memo.

"Happy to be here," the research article doesn't discuss sexism or racism specifically.

I really think love for a particular candidate has clouded the Geraldine Ferraro conversation. I'll admit, she doesn't seem very up to date on proper terminology, but she's trying to voice, what she believes to be an honest opinion. Like it or not, Obama has a female problem, and pretending it doesn't exist will only keep driving those women away. You can call it 'the victim olympics' all you like.....but branding Geraldine Ferraro with the 'scarlet R', just to shut her up, is not the answer. I'm worried....older women feel very slighted. Not only have they lost their dream candidate, but they've watched a media suck the marrow out of every perceived racial issue, while ignoring or indulging blatant sexism. I'm not blaming Obama....but come on ladies...a blog named 'Feministing' should at least be willing to do more than just scream 'shut up!' at the first woman VP candidate. Have her infringements on your sensibilities really been that awful? Could we get some perspective on what Ferraro ACTUALLY said, instead of everybody else's, most malignant interpretation of her 'real intentions.' I'm not saying the woman should be treated as revered patron saint, but out of respect for who she is, and what she's done, and the slings and arrows she has withstood in her past, could you try to hear what she's saying on some kind of real level beyond sanctimonious, snarky pomposity? Now....there's your first suggestion on 'The Great Healing.' Please remember, it is Obama and his supporters job to reach out and start the healing, not the other way around. Congrats to the Obama supporters, but you are also the proud new owners of this Democratic party. It has a lot of potential, but you have a lot of work, and it's your turn to show patience and reach out to people....that is if you actually want to win.

I recognize the focus on the article was not race or gender, hence the "FWIW". But I thought the study was interesting in that it showed that Obama seemed to have the hardest coverage with the longest running and most frequent bad stories post-Feb.

I recognize that there are some real issues out there for Obama to deal with. Indeed, HRC and her surrogates seem to point out a new group everyday that he has a hard time winning compared to her, but I guess my takeaway from Ferraro's piece was that it was just a little sad. At a time that most of the Democratic leadership is trying to preach unity, Ferraro repeats the "just words" meme that was a favorite of the Clinton campaign and, in an odd way, identifies herself with the Reagan Democrats who feel "reverse racism" is a reason not to vote for Obama, even though there doesn't appear to be any evidence that he is a "reverse racism" proponent. It just seemed a odd choice for her since she dropped out of the news a while ago and seemed like she was trying to justify herself. Unfortunately, she can only do so by dusting up the same controversy in the first place, which further alienates the Reagan Democrats for whom she is speaking and the other Clinton supporters who are disappointed with the outcome.

i read both, and i agree, both are flawed.

the second one, although ignorant and unsympathetic, has a point in saying that Ferraro never specifically cites an example of sexism. She assumes that the reader knows of its existence.

Like JessicaNOW, I do not really see a huge problem with Ferraro's editorial. It's an editorial: it's not a prescription to solve our woes. She's not writing as a policy-maker, but as a citizen with an opinion that needs voiced.

And isn't the commissioning of a study a way of fixing these problems? If the actualities of sexism in this race can be quantified (by illustrious Harvard U, no less!), people may take a second look. It can go from something that estranged former vice presidential candidates write about, and something that everyone regards as true and worth debating.

To people who think that the dynamics in this race regarding sexism and racism should simply be swept under the carpet because the primaries seem to be coming to a close, it is not responsible to simply forget about these injustices. Whether you like it or not, Clinton is still in the race, and she's still fighting hard.

Here's a pretty good indicator of sexism in the campaign: http://www.womensmediacenter.com/sexism_sells.html

Note: there hasn't been a heck of a lot of public outcry because of the sexism... which is equally interesting.

JessicaNOW, the problem I think is that Ferraro ends up using the same stupid canard that white people bring up whenever they get mad at being called racists -- after saying something that is patently so.

It would be like saying "Hey, The Bell Curve showed nonwhites are inferior" and then getting miffed when someone calls you on it.

This doesn't mean there was and is no sexism in the campaign. Christ on a cracker, why is it that people like Ferraro seem to think that saying Ferraro is wrong or Clinton isn't a good candidate means you are a horrible sexist? Sheesh. It's not like any of this shit is mutually exclusive.

There are plenty of reasons to not vote for Hilary in the primary. Her vote for the Iraq war and Lieberman-Kyl are two big reasons. Clinton and Obama both are centrist Democrats. I have more faith in Obama's commitment to transparent governance, but that's just me.

If any woman would vote for McCain out of pique then I am sorry, that is just plain stupid. Your candidate doesn't make it via the primaries, so you vote to roll back everything she stands for? Christ that's nuts, don't you think? I would hope most women are smarter than that or we really are screwed.

By the way, the polls where they ask people how they would vote after asking which is more important to them, gender or race are essentially asking self-confessed racists and sexists to say how they would vote based on that. The results are almost self-fulfilling.

( There was also no breakdown that I saw to determine whether that many women really would go GOP over Obama or just stay home).

I really think love for a particular candidate has clouded the Geraldine Ferraro conversation. I'll admit, she doesn't seem very up to date on proper terminology, but she's trying to voice, what she believes to be an honest opinion. Like it or not, Obama has a female problem, and pretending it doesn't exist will only keep driving those women away. You can call it 'the victim olympics' all you like.....but branding Geraldine Ferraro with the 'scarlet R', just to shut her up, is not the answer. I'm worried....older women feel very slighted. Not only have they lost their dream candidate, but they've watched a media suck the marrow out of every perceived racial issue, while ignoring or indulging blatant sexism. I'm not blaming Obama....but come on ladies...a blog named 'Feministing' should at least be willing to do more than just scream 'shut up!' at the first woman VP candidate. Have her infringements on your sensibilities really been that awful? Could we get some perspective on what Ferraro ACTUALLY said, instead of everybody else's, most malignant interpretation of her 'real intentions.' I'm not saying the woman should be treated as revered patron saint, but out of respect for who she is, and what she's done, and the slings and arrows she has withstood in her past, could you try to hear what she's saying on some kind of real level beyond sanctimonious, snarky pomposity? Now....there's your first suggestion on 'The Great Healing.' Please remember, it is Obama and his supporters job to reach out and start the healing, not the other way around. Congrats to the Obama supporters, but you are also the proud new owners of this Democratic party. It has a lot of potential, but you also have a lot of work, and it's your turn to show patience and reach out to people....that is if you actually want to win.

Ferraro: Democrats are both racist and sexist.

Democrats: STFU BITCH!

Happy: At a time that most of the Democratic leadership is trying to preach unity, Ferraro repeats the "just words" meme....

Okay, that's a problem. The Democratic leadership went in, and arrogantly announced that they were...'united'....while grandma was still screaming and crying in the hall. If that doesn't just scream, 'we don't give a damn what you think' I don't know what does. They may not have a screen name, but I assure you, these ladies exist in large numbers and they've been told to sit down, and shut up since after Iowa.

Holly,

I don't understand why it is that folks say that women have been asked to sit down and shut up in this election. If anything, women have made their voices heard profoundly in this election, particularly women in certain demographic groups, in support of HRC. The issue is not that women have been asked to sit down or shut up. The issue is that Obama has narrowly eked out a win over HRC, based in part on the support of millions of women. The reality is that since February, HRC has faced long, indeed insurmountable, odds despite her strong support among many groups. Are Obama's supporters the propelled him to the delegate lead asked to sit down and shut up when HRC claims the popular vote lead as the basis for her candidacy? Are the folks in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington asked to sit down and shut up when HRC doesn't include those caucus voters her claim for the popular vote lead? Are the 40% of Michigan voters who showed up to vote affirmatively for an unnamed candidate rather than HRC being asked to sit down and shut up when she claims to have won?

It's unfortunate that she lost because it is true that she has run a strong campaign and is a tough competitor. She remains one of the most important Democrats in the nation and a valuable public servant advancig the interests of many people from all over the country. But the reality remains that by every metric she has lost. My suggestion is that the Democratic women who supported HRC continue to make their voices heard campaigning for the Democratic nominee to protect reproductive rights and fight for true gender equality. Don't sit down, don't shut up. But fight the right enemy: McCain. Failing to take the fight to the right enemy could be disastrous for women and the nation as a whole.

Ferraro shouldn't have had to resign before. Campaign folks should be permitted some latitude in "heat of the battle" comments. She's entitled to spout off, obviously, too. But it doesn't really help the Dems, does it? The piece reads like it could have been written by Amy Poehler's SNL writers. Yes, said Poehler's HRC character, I will gladly say that anyone who doesn't vote for me is a sexist.

BTW, Geraldine, there is no such thing as "Reagan Democrats" anymore. The people who were have long since disembarked to the Republicans and they were not going to vote for HRC or Barack, in the primaries (except for Rush's "Operation Chaos" votes and the like) or in the general election. Fuck 'em.

I haven't read a lot of Jensen but every time I do I am annoyed. There's something about his attitude that nearly all men are brutish, unthinking assholes. Yeah, many of us are, but his examples here don't come close to supporting his premises.

His first question, what to tell a 12 year old, doesn't really separate out what is stereotypically or societal (or even historical) masculinity vs. what the students think ought to be told.

Then he supposes locker room posturing is an accurate reflection of true inner beliefs.

I suppose his exercise is worth doing, for the neanderthal college students who might be in his class. (Of course he does not try to reverse the gender questions, or doesn't report on the attempt if he did.) But it's not very enlightening.

Deborah Tannen has more useful things to say in gender differences on behavior and language, and even her views make the differences more distinct than in reality in my view.

Yes, there is a stereotypical image of masculinity that many, even most, American men (maybe even most women) subscribe to. But.... duh, this is a revelation?

Let's not forget that Ferraro was forced to resign because she claimed that Obama had only gotten to his current position because he's Black.

She was condemned for her comment, and rightly so.

To say that Obama has a "woman" problem is only partially accurate. I believe that Obama does well with young women. Obama has a more difficult time with middle aged and older women. And just as much as Obama can be categorized as having a "woman problem," Hilary Clinton has an "African American problem." Blacks weren't just voting for Obama because he was Black, increasingly, as the campaign continued they began to feel alienated by Clinton(Hilary and Bill) that they interpreted to be racist. Hilary began with a significant amount of Black support but slowly lost it as the price of comments like "hardworking white Americans" added up.

The reason I, and others want Ferraro to sit down and be quiet isn't because I don't think she has a point about sexism. I believe she's absolutely right about the sexism in this primary--however, she totally dismisses the issue of racism (Jeremiah Wright controversy) and uses a right-wing tactic by complaining of reverse discrimination (people only like him because he's Black.)

Ferraro isn't speaking truth to power, she's angry and upset because she was called out for her racist comment, and chooses to complain that,"If you're white you can't open your mouth without being accused of being racist," instead of acknowledging that she was wrong and her comment was inappropriate.