It's about damned time. Who expects that she will give wholehearted support to Obama? If he wins the presidency, Hillary is shut out for 8 more years, enough time to fade into obscurity.

So far, it's been all about Hillary

woohoo, finally an endorsement

This is the kind of partisanship we really need - to emphasize the ideological differences between parties. Her refrain is kind of clunky though, "and that is why we have to elect Barack Obama our President". I guess it is the point...

As an Obama supporter I just want to say that I hope we can all, finally, come together and support our Democratic candidate for president.

There has been a lot of dirt and mishandling by all parties, including those outside our party who are counting on a nation being more racist than misogynist as well as a clearly biased media. I'm sure there are justifiably hurt feelings on all sides, however I hope that this does not cause us to lose sight of the big picture and the real changes we can hope to be made starting next year.

Lets get these war mongering betrayers of the proletariat out of office. Even if Sen. Obama wasn't your ideal candidate it's our fight to lose to the Republican party and the extreme right American xtian Jihadists who believe homosexuality is the same as terrorism and that a womans choice should be if she is going to prepare meatloaf or casserole for her husband that night.

If you love your country then put aside any hard feelings and join the fight to end partisan tyranny.

I, for one, do hope that there is at least a cabinet posting for Sen. Clinton. she has a lot of power and potential to do good; I would hate to see it wasted.

She is great. I am so excited to have witnessed this part of history.

Hopefully Obama has the brains and political savvy to realize how amazing and unstoppable they'd be as running mates.

Sen. Clinton gave a good speech. I'm very proud of her.

She's not a great orator, especially compared to Obama. That really isn't the point. The message was completely unambiguous; we can't afford to let the Republicans win this election, and we need to throw all our efforts behind Obama's campaign.

And frankly, it is *her* concession speech, it's *her* time to thank her supporters and give them a sense of closure, so I am fucking tired of people complaining about how she talked about herself so much. Cry me a river.

i was pleased she mentioned gay rights in her speech
http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com

I stopped supporting her months and months ago, and I know she's just a politician, but sometimes Hillary Clinton just melts my little feminist heart.

sighhhh...i thought it was great

I respect Senator Clinton, but she should definitely not be VP. The dirty campaign she ran was simply too much.

I started out at the beginning of this primary with an open mind, feeling that either candidate was a fantastic choice, but as I saw Clinton pandering to racist voters, using racially loaded language, playing up Bittergate and Wright controversy--or who can forgot her saying that McCain would be a better candidate than Obama--I lost faith in her.

She should not be VP, her old-school dirty politics don't mesh with Obama's message of hope; it would hypocritical of him to choose her. I can see making concessions and offering her a cabinet position, but that's it.

I really think she can do more from the senate than she could as VP. If I was her I would not accept VP candidacy - for the good of the party.
She did deliver a good speech though, and accomplished what she needed to: thank and encourage her supporters, celebrate the victory that her achievements are, and rally behind the Obama candidacy.

She gave an excellent speech, and would make a terrific Vice President - just as Obama will make a an excellent President.

"The Reckless Tongue," I'm not sure what you mean by a "dirty campaign." She ran a campaign. This is politics, not a nomination to the sainthood. If Clinton couldn't walk that incredibly thin line between being "approachable" and "tough," pundits would have been all over her, all the time. As it was, sexism in the media coverage was over-the-top.

But moving on, the race for President isn't over yet. It will be interesting to see if Republicans will start to swiftboat - and if they do what the media coverage will be.

TRT, I hope you put your energies where your mouth is. I am due to give birth days before the election - and I will be walking my precinct for Obama. Will you be volunteering or will you continue to spend your time pissing off Hillary supporters? Cuz that ain't gonna help Obama!

I've seen a few pro-Clinton blogs & sites filled with posts from Clinton voters saying they'll vote for McCain. Of course some of these folks are republicans looking to fan flames of divisiveness.
But we need to remind everyone who says this that McCain loves to brag about his anti-choice voting record, not to mention this joke he told a few years back:

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno."

"but sometimes Hillary Clinton just melts my little feminist heart."

I'm so with you ERyd! Every time I was ready to write her off in the past, I'd listen to her speak and she'd always change my mind.

I'm afraid I couldn't bring myself to watch the speech, it's just too depressing and I've had to sit through too many in the past 8 years! I don't think she should even consider the VP slot if it's offered - though I doubt it will be - because I think it's beneath her.

She lost, as someone always does in an election, and I can accept that. She conceded and threw her support behind Obama on her own timetable and in her own way as it is her right to do. It's not her job now to do penance for having the audacity to challenge him. He won the primary, it's his job now to earn the votes that'll get him the white house, it's as simple as that. And continuing to trivialize and treat with contempt the 18 million people who voted for her hardly seems like a wise manner in which to win the election in November, in my opinion.

Amen tangotulip

I was not a Clinton supporter, but that speech melted my heart, too. It was the best feminist speech I've ever heard.

Jamorris, those people are the minority. As a Clinton supporter, I find it appalling that others would rather vote for McCain or not vote at all (which is the same thing to me) than support Obama. Clinton and Obama have very similar platforms; they may differ in their planned methods for getting things done but their goals and beliefs are pretty much identical. I can't get behind the mindset of voting for someone who's platform is 180 degrees away when there's someone who has essentially the same ideals sitting there just waiting to be elected.

I tend to believe a lot of these are tantrums. People got very intense in their support of one candidate or the other, and their cries of not wanting to vote for Obama may just be a knee-jerk reaction to their disappointment. I heard a lot of Obama supporters saying the same thing throughout the primary season, and it never made sense to me.

I think as time goes on it will fade. People will get over their initial disappointment and put some thought into the election and what it means. They will realize that Obama is a better fit for their beliefs then McCain. They will either see Clinton as VP nominee or at least speaking out in Obama's favor and they will rally.

(I hope)

JessicaNow, "pissing off Clinton supporters" isn't my objective. Until this primary, I was one of them. I would hope that surely this blog is the place for me to discuss the fact that as a feminist of color I was disappointed by Hilary's campaign because of the undertones of racism in it--that's the dirty part I'm offended by.

I'm not going to get involved in oppression Olympics, because sexism was a huge and disheartening part of this primary--as was racism. I expect my political leaders to avoid engaging or fanning the flames of either, and Clinton disappointed me, just as the times that Obama uttered sexist comments also offended me--the difference is he apologized for them.

Now that the primary is over, I will fully support Hilary's efforts to unify the party, and commend her for her speech, but at some point as an elected official she will have to make amends for what many in the black community perceive as racially charged language in her campaign.

When she gets ready to do that, I will be more than happy and accepting of her apology, but it must be done.

I cried... a lot.

I am so proud... and yet so sad --- a whirlwind of emotion today as a young woman.

As a Sen. Obama supporter I have to say I was angry with Sen. Clinton not just for some of the things that were said but her tarnishment of the Clinton "brand." As a former activist who had many toe to toe, veins sticking out on my forehead arguements defending them it was hard for me during periods of the campaign to watch her.

But I have to say, the speech she gave was the best I'd ever witnessed by her. She started out in the campaign as a shaky public speaker, but her skill now is undeniable. As I watched her speak something unexpected happened. I began to get emotional. I'd have bet the mortgage against that happening. I started to tear up a bit. As the father of a 2 1/2 year old daughter she represents a future of unlimited possibilities I want for her. Every so oftern I pick her up and whisper into her ear, "You can be anything you want. The world is yours." I know it sounds corny but my daughter is the center of the universe for me. Hillary and yes, this web site means a great deal to me as I watch the feminist movement of today plow the way for my daughter tomorrow. I've never posted here before but I am a longtime reader. The perspectives offered here are an important contribution to the feminist movement. I look forward to seeing the continuing fine work here.

Thanks,

TrumanDem

Truman's Conscience
"The Buck Stopped Here"

JessicaNow, I'm sorry if saying this does piss of Clinton supporters, but TRT was right about her running, at times, a dirty campaign.

I supported her initially, and I still think she's great, but I changed my mind about who I wanted the nominee to be when Hillary started up with her refrain about "hard-working Americans, white Americans." As if white voters are the only ones who work hard, or that Obama's support among POC didn't count! Seriously, it was even more overt race-baiting than Nixon's "law and order" rhetoric, and that's a mark Democrats should try to avoid topping.

As a woman and one of the young feminists who everyone said already did or should support Obama, I want to say thank you to Hillary Clinton for reminding us that anything is possible and that we must never stop redefining what leadership and leaders look like. When I first decided as a pre-teen in Lubbock, Texas that I wanted to be the first female president, the consciousness and language to support or even react positively to such an idea didn't really exist. Now it does, and there is a real life person to look to and admire, emulate and learn from her mistakes. I am so grateful that my two baby girl cousins will grow up in this post-Hillary America.

As young women, it's up to us to prepare to take the baton and be ready when the time comes for us to run and this time, win. The most powerful moment of the campaign was when the audience of mostly good ol' Texan gals started up a chant of "Yes SHE Can" after HRC won that crucial primary. I think that spontaneous cry still applies, if not to Hillary, then to one of us. Which one of us will it be? That's the really cool part...

The Reckless Tongue, I've wracked my brain trying to remember anything Clinton said that was racist - or anything that her campaign did that would make it seem as though she and her supporters/campaign were racists.

Perhaps I missed something (I don't always pay attention to the news) - but I can't think of anything Clinton said/did that would make her a racist or the purveyor of a racist campaign.

TRT -
Hillary and Bill apologized for MISUNDERSTOOD comments that many saw as racist - South Carolina, comparisons to RFK. And Hillary never hesitated to distance herself from "racist" (although I don't believe they are intentionally racist comments) made by Geraldine Ferraro and other supporters. I'm with JessicaNOW.

I think the "Oppression Olympics" are a bad thing. We shouldn't be competing to see which is worse - racism or sexism. But that doesn't mean we ignore sexism because there is racism too - or vice versa.

JessicaNow,

I think the most comprehensive account of the Clinton campaign's racist attacks can be located here:

http://clintonattacksobama.pbwiki.com/Incident+Tracker

PS As a feminist of color, I don't think a "tough campaign" is a valid excuse for such behavior. It just keeps feminists divided.

Read it. The link doesn't make your point...

Read it. The link doesn't make your point...

"Attacking" in a political campaign is not the same as being a purveyor of racism.

Perhaps, it's a matter of perspective, Jessicanow. But I do feel that allowing your surrogates to engage in sleazy race-baiting is racist. It may not be overt but the effect is just as devastating. I know it's what drove me away from Senator Clinton's campaign. It also made me reassess whether President Clinton was ever truly committed to racial equality.

I'm not interested in playing Oppression Olympics. I'm interested in dismantling oppression and that requires taking sexism and racism both seriously. I can't support a feminism that doesn't do both simultaneously (nor anti-racism for that matter). I think this post from Racialicious captures it best:

http://www.racialicious.com/2008/04/28/does-feminism-have-to-address-race/#more-1487

JessicaNOW - Really? I was appalled by what I read, especially as a Clinton supporter. Now, the ONLY "detraction" I would make is that about 40-50% of the "incidents" (don't like that word but it's what the site uses) were centered around/engineered Clinton supporters, not by staffers of her campaign, herself or her husband. HOWEVER...that still leaves a lot of racism made by her staff, her, or Bill. Bill made a lot. Ticks me off.

I read that link. It proves nothing, except that Sen. Clinton is not racist.

It relied on comments made by her supporters; at last count, there are over 18 million of those supporters.

Bill Clinton did make some of those comments. Mostly, the blog author got upset when he said that Obama is a "symbol." Apparently, it's racist to point out that his resume - in regards to leading the free world - is nearly nonexistent. Sure, he's brilliant, but he lacks executive experience (frankly, I think governors are better-equipped to be President than Senators or the like, so this something that could be said about any of our candidates), has been in the Senate for a term, has zero foreign policy experience, and zero experience in management.

Pointing that out doesn't make anyone racist; it means that a more-experienced opponent is running a solid campaign. It also says - shocker of shockers - that the speaker is NOT racist. Think it over. If we need to lower our standards for people of colour, aren't we just saying that they can't measure up? That we can't expect a black Presidential candidate who has brains, oratory skills, and experience?

Some "super-bad" racist statements: Bill Clinton, in response to a question of why he and Hillary had to work together to beat Obama, said that the latter was running a good campaign. He then referenced the Rev. Jackson's campaign in the same state. Apparently, you aren't allowed to say that your opponent runs a good campaign without being racist...?!?!

That link is incredibly reaching. And I still don't see how Clinton ran a racist campaign.

I loved her speech, and am happy that she threw her support full force behind Obama. Now, let's get him elected.

Point of fact: Clinton fired the man who made comments speculating that Obama sold drugs. That man obviously does not speak for Hillary or her supporters.

Oenophile, if you don't want to see the racism of the Clinton campaign you won't.

Racism Review does a wonderful job of unpacking these issues if you're interested:
http://www.racismreview.com/blog/?p=273

As a feminist and Hillary supporter, I loved the speech. About half-way through I just started crying. Not only for Hillary's loss, but also for the fact that we could be having a black president next. It makes me so glad to be alive during this time. No matter which one of them won the election, they both embody the democratic spirit.

I think this line from her speech was my favorite: "Although we weren’t able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you, it’s got about 18 million cracks in it. And the light is shining through like never before, filling us all with the hope and the sure knowledge that the path will be a little easier next time."
It just made the feminist and future-President in me very happy : )

This election has exposed some serious rifts, both within the democratic party, as well as within feminist movement. We are all trying to heal right now. As a woman of color, I am FAR from being ok with the way a lot of feminist commentators have dealt with racial issues.

I agree with TangoTulip's excellent point that in order to unite the party, Obama has to earn the support of Clinton's 18 million voters. In order to do so, he really has to make an effort to understand where people are coming from, and he needs to not trivialize or dismiss them. I don't see how the situation within the feminist movement is any different.

That said, JessicaNOW and oenophile, you're not helping. Instead of trying to shout down everyone who is talking about racism in this campaign, why not go and read some of the many, many articles written by black authors (not to ignore writers of other races who have discussed this issue) and bloggers about this election? It's not up to either of you to make an objective determination about whether or not someone has a right to be offended.

For example, JessicaNOW, you make a very valid point about Clinton having to walk a fine line between appearing tough and approachable. As an example of sexism, that is a much more complicated point to prove than say, the nutcracker dolls, but that doesn't make it any less valid. I would say the same thing is true of a lot of the racism in this election, especially surrounding the narrative that labels Obama an "outsider." I can be more specific, and I can talk about the ways I feel that these labels factored into Clinton's "electability" argument, but it's been hashed and rehashed. Instead of ignoring, dismissing and downplaying what people are saying, why can't you make a smidgen of an effort to understand where people are coming from?

in regards to leading the free world - is nearly nonexistent. Sure, he's brilliant, but he lacks executive experience (frankly, I think governors are better-equipped to be President than Senators or the like, so this something that could be said about any of our candidates), has been in the Senate for a term, has zero foreign policy experience, and zero experience in management.

_______________
you just described clinton's profile to a T. what executive experience does she have, or foreign policy experience other than being married to a president.

anyway, for those that deny the racist tone of her campaign (not her directly, but her campaign) are not different that those that deny the sexist tone of some of the coverage regarding clinton

I'm not arguing that Clinton or her campaign organizers are racist--I do however argue that they at times (intentionally or unintentionally--it doesn't matter to me) employed tactics that made black constituents feel undervalued, and used language to purposefully play upon the fears/misgivings of racist voters.

There was a good article in the LA Times that sums up alot of it: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-clintonblacks25-2008may25,0,3661.story

There isn't any ONE action or ONE statement that Clinton or her campaigners made or did, what became problematic was the continued pattern of racial insensitivity. Being that African Americans have long counted themselves as a solid part of Clinton's base, they rightfully felt betrayed by that insensitivity--they of all people should of known better.

For me, the most troubling part of her campaign was the idea that she and her aides put forward, that she was the better candidate because she appealed to working class white voters, and downplaying the importance of black voters. I also believe concentrating on the Wright incident was an effort by Clinton and Republicans to scare white voter with the specter of an "angry black man."

And even if none of those arguments ring true to you, at the very least the fact that so many African Americans feel as if the Clinton campaign was offensive, should be of note.

Just as many are calling upon Obama to make amends for what many female voters perceived to be sexism on the part of his campaign, Clinton should do the same. Her career is far from over, and her continued success will rest, in part, on her ability to mend and strengthen her ties with the African American community.

Here's another good article that sums it up: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-koffler/how-hillary-clinton-lost_b_102460.html

The Reckless Tongue- I always assumed that the focus on white working class voters was because they make up a much larger voting block (one that carries important swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania) than black voters do. Though I agree with you that the focus seems suspicious and makes me uncomfortable as well.

I am proud of Senator Clinton. I hope that one day my "Someday a woman will be President!" shirt will be obsolete. Until that time I'm going to switch out my Clinton yard sign for an Obama one. :)

Clinton said that *we* weren't able to shatter the "highest, hardest glass ceiling this time"? As a woman of color, I am immensely offended.

First, who is "we?" Did she have a mouse in her pocket? Was she using the royal we? I am tired of older women claiming to speak for every woman in the country.

Second, the "highest and hardest glass ceiling"? Right . . . . Over half of students in college and grad school are women. Can't say that about people of color. As of the last statistics, there are ten white female CEOs of Fortune 500 companies - an appaling number to be sure. But there are only four African Americans - all men. There are about 16 white women in the senate - and one African American, and it looks like he's on his way to the White House, so we'll be back to zero shortly. In every law firm I've seen, white women partners outnumber partners of color of all genders very significantly - like three to one. I could go on and on and on . . . My point is that if one more person says that gender is harder to deal with than race, I am going to do a primal scream. Don't holler about the oppression you suffer due to gender without recognizing the benefits bestowed by race. By accepting that fact, you empower yourself to educate others and dismantle the system. Ignoring it keeps the wall intact. This isn't "oppression olympics," it's the matrix of domination. If you aren't up on your Patricia Hill Collins, you should be.

(Since we are talking about privilege, both Obama and Clinton had class privilege. Both were "pedigreed" with the "right" kind of schools. If they were community college people, or even if they had atteneded - gasp! a non-Ivy school - unfortunately, neither of them would have gotten as far as they did. So, let's not forget that class remains a divisive issue also.)

Oh, one more thing, just because Obama wins the nomination, race is suddenly subordinate to gender? (Not saying anyone here is saying that, but pundits are.) Only someone who has the privilege of dealing with only one of those would make such a statement. Barack Obama could be sworn in tomorrow, and the day to day lives of everyday black people would not change overnight. Racism is not about one man - brilliant though he may be. Racism is a structure that was built over time. This is a step - but only a small step toward dismantling that.

Hmm, two thoughts from someone who hasn't paid much attention because it all seemed like such useless in-fighting:

First, I hate that people are saying she ran a "dirty campaign". An example of a dirty campaigning, to me, is Mugabe in Zimbabwe right now, or the campaign in which Yushchenko was poisoned. There may have been some aspects of her campaign that were racist but even racism isn't "dirty campaigning" in my book unless it is actively used to prevent people from voting or campaigning as they please.

Second, someone said above that the supposed racist comments from the Clinton camp were "not intentional," as if that somehow means that they weren't really racist and should be forgiven. But I think we all know that unintentional 'isms' can hurt just as much as intentional ones. We've spent the past many months decrying the sexism in the media and in our fellow Democrats/liberals - sexism that is almost never intentional - so it should be easy to understand that intent doesn't matter. Racism is racism, whether the speaker intends it to be or not.

Clinton is no more racist than Obama is sexist. The media however, and apparently America has some serious issues with both and we NEED to have some REAL discussions.

I supported Clinton from day 1, she was my candidate. With that, I really hoped that the both camps could be as magnanimous as Clinton was in her speech and push for party unity. However, from what I have read so far that does not seem to be the case. We better figure it out before November.

I loved her speech and I'm proud to have supported her since she announced her candidacy.
I'm now backing Barack and am happy that it's all about the general election now. BARACK 08'!!!

The Reckless Tongue, I have read and listened to African-American supporters of Clinton as well as the links you have pointed to. The African-American supporters include: Whoopi Goldberg, Mayor Doug Palmer, and Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio.

Here is what they said about the primary:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/18/AR2008021802364.html

I think the answer to the question "did Hillary run a racist campaign?" is entirely dependent upon whom one supported in the primary.

I have to make something very clear. I did not support Clinton in our caucus. But I think it's awful to be maligning her character in this way.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/29/black-clinton-supporters-_n_89140.html

The Reckless Tongue, I have read and listened to African-American supporters of Clinton as well as the links you have pointed to. The African-American supporters include: Whoopi Goldberg, Mayor Doug Palmer, and Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio.

Here is what they said about the primary:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/18/AR2008021802364.html

I think the answer to the question "did Hillary run a racist campaign?" is entirely dependent upon whom one supported in the primary.

I have to make something very clear. I did not support Clinton in our caucus. But I think it's inaccurate to be maligning her character in this way.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/29/black-clinton-supporters-_n_89140.html

So what you're saying is... racism is in the eye of the beholder. There is no way to be objectively not racist. No standards by which we can judge people. If someone is offended, then the speaker ought to grovel and issue a stream of apologies before surrendering.

Sorry, that's not how the world works. There is a "reasonable person" standard in the law, which is also applicable to life. If a reasonable person would not read those statements as racist, then they are (wait for this shocker) not racist. Ditto for sexism.

I have zero desire to read the machinations of someone's mind who has nothing more than a pre-determined goal: "prove" that the opponent is racist.

I distinctly recall a LawFairy person calling me "RACIST" (with capital letters!) becuase I said that Mexicans lack the educational opportunities that we take for granted in America. I'm sorry, but I don't look for racism, sexism, or the like around every corner, simply because I actually have a life and have real problems to worry about. I also have no desire to diminish the real effects of racism and sexism by getting hysterical about comments about... lack of experience.

Pathetic.

You said it Oenophile - when being accused of having said something racist or sexist (or homophobic, lookist, etc.), one should absolutely offer a stream of apologies and then explain that it wasn't the intention. It's called proving you're bigger than what you've just been accused of; prioritizing conflict resolution over your own pride. Anything else is sure to result in deeper rifts and intensified anger on both sides, as we've seen in Clinton's case.

If she and her campaign had immediately, loudly, and constructively apologized for offending the black community early on and exerted themselves to prove that they were indeed allies of that voting bloc, then they could have regained the voters' trust. Instead, her campaign reacted with outrage over the accusations and started claiming that white blue-collar voters are the ones Democrats need anyway. No surprise then when up to 90% of black voters are not voting for Clinton. First they were offended by Hillary's MLK remarks, Bill's South Carolina remarks, everything Ferraro has said since March, and then Hillary's "hard-working Americans, white Americans" remarks, and then they were accused of being the PC police. Why vote for a candidate when they don't represent you?

All this when sincere, mature apologies could have sufficed.

Clinton fired the campaign people who made offensive remarks. Cinton apologized directly for the remarks she made that offended people. And she apologized for what people who worked for campaign said:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/13/clinton.black/
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/13/513905.aspx
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/15/politics/main1618081.shtml
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=7806
The list goes on and on...

Likewise, Obama's campaign, and his supporters have made a load of apologies:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/29/obama_again_apologizes_for_a_p.html
http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/obama_apologizes_to_sweetie.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/07/2008-03-07_barack_obama_forced_to_decry_advisers_mo.html
The list goes on and on...

It's the case that nothing Clinton can do will satisfy everyone. Clearly.

Okay, I don't think it's debatable that Clinton's campaign had some very questionable material in it. I don't think she's at all a racist, and I don't think the vast majority of people would claim her to be. But, as someone who supported her and defended her early on in her campaign, I have to say that her virtual silence on certain issues, like Ferraro, and certain "slips of the tongue" like "hard working white Americans" finally pushed me off her team and onto Obama's. I kept waiting for her to seize the moment, to take control of what the media was saying about racially inflamed material from her supporters. She never did. All we ever got was tepid apology after tepid apology.

That isn't to say she did anything racially charged on purpose, but I think failure to step up to the plate and offer a good response or apology is reason enough for people to be angry. As a woman who had to put up with so much sexism, she should have understood, taken action, and done more.

FeministLawProf: I really liked your comment, but I have to add, in Hillary's defense, that the term "glass ceiling" was first used and has been traditionally used for women's issues in the workplace. It has been expanded to racial, disability, and other divides, certainly. But I think colloquially it often applies to gender discrepancies. I think that Hillary was drawing upon the fact that the specific term was originally meant for women. Therefore, instead of saying that the "highest glass ceiling" was discrimination against women & NOT racial discrimination), I think she meant specifically within the world of gender discrimination: that the Presidency is the highest office in the United State, and therefore in the world of sexist discrimination in the workplace, it is the tallest barrier.

Jessica NOW,

If a man who supported Obama were to say to you "clearly Obama's campaign has not been sexist, look at how many women support him," I doubt that argument would carry much weight eith you. But that is exactly what you are doing. Polls show that huge numbers of African-Americans feel like Hillary Clinton appealed to racism in this campaign. I don't understand how white people can just write this off, unless it is based on some assumption of Black over-sensitivity.

It isn't even "immediately apologize or defend yourself," oenephile. Is it really so hard to ask for further explanation from the person who is offended and then listen to what they have to say? And you could still do things like disagree that a particular statement was racist or sexist but still acknowledge that the person was legitimately offended given the context s/he had.

But that would all require sensitivity and open-mindedness, and that's just too much to ask when you're wrapped up in your warm little privilege cocoon, isn't it?

I can't wait to see what people are going to do when Hillary fades from the limelight and they don't have her to scapegoat for everything from the decay of modern civilization to the extinction of the dinosaurs. I've never understood why the Clintons are held to and supposed to live up to a much higher standard than virtually everyone else in government and politics.

At the end of the day, Obama is a product of the same elite educational and political machine that the Clintons are, at least Hillary doesn't try to deny the fact that she's been privileged. No one had a problem with the Clintons or their ambition when they were turning out voters or helping to raise millions for the Democratic Party.

I also find it interesting that such hatred and vitriol is being directed towards Clinton's "older white women" supporters, as if they were responsible for the institutionalized racism and discrimination that minorities et al face, while no one has mentioned the Ted Kennedys or other overlords of the Democratic Party. I guess endorsing Obama negates the fact that he and his colleagues are the very embodiment of the power structure that really keeps people trapped in poverty and lack of opportunity.

WaxGhost,

Please do not make personal attacks against fellow commenters. It is rude, counter-productive, and makes it seem as if your own views lack substance.

Second, the "highest and hardest glass ceiling"? Right . . . . Over half of students in college and grad school are women. Can't say that about people of color. As of the last statistics, there are ten white female CEOs of Fortune 500 companies - an appaling number to be sure. But there are only four African Americans - all men. There are about 16 white women in the senate - and one African American, and it looks like he's on his way to the White House, so we'll be back to zero shortly. In every law firm I've seen, white women partners outnumber partners of color of all genders very significantly - like three to one. I could go on and on and on . . . My point is that if one more person says that gender is harder to deal with than race, I am going to do a primal scream.

Feminist Law Prof - would you happen to have statistics that are adjusted for relative proportion of the population? Women make up slightly more than half of the adult population; African-Americans, according to the latest Census, make up approximately 13% of the population. It is, IMHO, misleading at best to compare straight-up percentages of women and African-Americans, when there are four times as many of the former.

Actually, adjusting your CEO statistic, you're more likely to be a CEO if you're black than if you're a woman.

In short, we call "minorities" by that name because they make up less than 50% of the population. In a totally ideal world, the percentage of women in Congress would hover somewhere around 50%; whites and Hispanics, 80%; African-Americans, 13%; Asians, 4%; and others, the remainder. That would be a totally accurate represenation of the American population.

Here's the census data upon which I relied: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

oenephile, nice try but identifying the apparent positioning behind your arguments is not a "personal attack."

How funny, also, that that is your only reply to the destruction of your false dichotomy with obvious facts. It just makes you look dumb (and no, that's not a personal attack either).

AP, I don't think Obama has run a sexist campaign. I think the media has been sexist.

I've been a Obama supporter from day one of his campaign, and frankly I've never much liked Clinton.

Her speech was brilliant. I admire her much more because of it. Perhaps it should have happened a few weeks ago... but I'm willing to dismiss that because hopefully it will be the lighting force to bring the Democratic party together.

I think too much blood has been split for the two to become running mates (much more likely an Obama/Edwards ticket), Way too much attacks on them as a partnership could be used by Mcain for that to be viable. As much as I am a Obama supporter I do regret that she won't be on the ticket with him imo.

Regarding issues of racism to get votes, I don't live in a dream world where "rednecks or whatever you want to call them" don't make up a sizable amount of voters in the U.S and politicians don't want their vote. While I've always been in Obama's camp I've never thought Clinton was doing anything then what is fair politics (if politics can be fair).

I see Clinton pandering the white vote on racial issues no different then Obama pandering the black vote "as a brother". Both were subtle but they were both there.

I'm white and female and I endorse Obama as the next president of the U.S.A, and I am really, really happy that no matter what happens we are getting rid of Bush.

Again in my mind.. we are getting rid of Bush, and thank whoever you want that Cheny isn't taking his place.

WaxGhost,

You said: But that would all require sensitivity and open-mindedness, and that's just too much to ask when you're wrapped up in your warm little privilege cocoon, isn't it?

That's a personal attack. I do wish you would stop; you know very little about me. (I recall when MoxieHart tried to be all cool and made some snark about my intellect not meaning much, then comparing me to her father, who does all the work on his cars. Funny, because, IRL, I do most of the work on my car. Just saying - you would be surprised at how my life is not nearly the bastion of privilege that you think it is... except, of course, for the fact that I'm an American in the 21st century, which confers a tremendous privilege above and beyond what most people can even dream of.)

How funny, also, that that is your only reply to the destruction of your false dichotomy with obvious facts. It just makes you look dumb (and no, that's not a personal attack either).

Given the cruelty exhibited my many Feministing posters, I've developed a policy of not replying substantively to any comment which contains a personal attack, as yours did above. If you would actually like to discourse about the reactions to racism, I would be very happy to do so.

That would require that you leave the snark at home - including "makes you look dumb" and "warm privileged cocoon" or whatever crap you spouted at me. Clear?

P.S. Incidentally... You say that when a charge of (fill in the blank) is leveled, it would be helpful to hear why that person finds it offensive. When you said something blatantly offensive, however, you do not listen to why the other person thinks it offensive.

Double standards abound. Dare I say, WaxGhost, that you don't practise what you preach?

JessicaNow I took a look at your links and they were both from February much earlier in the primary season before the Clinton campaign began employing the tactics I described in my previous post. That leads to a good point. Hilary had a significant amount of African American support when her campaign began, she slowly lost it over time as the African American community began to react negatively to what they perceived to be pandering to racist voters in her campaign.

Cenophile, I find your argument that their are no objective standards for establishing racism and thus forces individuals to "grovel" if they are accused of it to be highly suspect and reminds me of a lot of arguments that anti-feminists lob against feminists-claiming that we see acts of misogyny everywhere and want them to "grovel" apologetically.

My point is, you're being dismissive to the many African Americans who were offended by Clinton's campaign because there aren't any "objective" standards to identify racism which you agree to.

JessicaNow you totally dismissed the link that Sardnica put up that speaks EXACTLY to what's going on in our conversation--namely about white feminists totally dismissing claims of racism by feminists of color, and how that serves to alienate feminists of color. I'll repost her link, because you and Cenophile should definitely read it:
http://www.racialicious.com/2008/04/28/does-feminism-have-to-address-race/

I'm still amazed that despite the fact that so many African Americans feel offended by Clinton's campaign that both of you are totally prepared to dismiss and ignore their feelings and thoughts because you don't deem them to be "objective."

One more point:

America was founded on many racist, classist, and misogynistic principles, and for us to continue moving this society in a direction so everyone can feel free, safe, and respected that means pausing to listen and trying to understand when someone says that they've been offended or discriminated against, even if it doesn't seem objective, or incriminates someone you respect.

I've been a fan of Hilary Clinton for quite some time, and I continue to be, that's why I was so hurt by what I perceived to be the racism of her campaign. That's why I hope she makes amends with the black community--I don't want her to "grovel" I just want to be able to feel the respect and pride that I felt in her before the primary.

I can only speak for myself, but to answer JessicaNow's assertion that "nothing the Clintons do will satisfy everyone," I was never one to enjoy seeing the Clintons attacked. I voted for Clinton twice as my senator and took the misogynistic, nutcracker attacks on her to be an attack on all women for many years.

That said, I decided not to support her based on the two issues that were immensely important to me - her stances on Iraq and Iran. Once the instances of offending the black community had accumulated to several over the course of a few months, I started to see a pattern that she was not very adept at erasing. I had truly thought she was bigger than that - that she could exhibit a genuine commitment to mending the fences, but I agree with ERyd that though she did apologize, it was "tepid apology after tepid apology." So I don't hate her - I've been deeply disappointed by her.

Clinton probably feels so used to being attacked that the only way to react to any criticism is a very concise "Sorry," and then hope the story dies. (In the case of the photo of Obama in Somali elder clothing, she thought it was best to first deflect the accusations onto him when voters called the use of the photo "divisive.") That's exactly the sort of irresponsible, winning-is-everything political style I don't want running the country no matter who the candidate is. So for me, she once had a lot of my respect and sympathy, but I've since lost most of it and she brought that on herself entirely.

Sweet Jesus. After reading these comments, I don't see HOW anyone COULDN'T understand why women of color and white anti-racists have been so turned off by the mainstream feminist movement. So many commenters here seem to have their heads in the sand. And what a perfect example of privilege: having privilege means that you are free to ignore the experiences of the unprivileged. All this, "Gee, gosh, I JUST CAN'T SEE how Clinton's campaign could ever, ever, EVAR be considered racist! If I can't see it, it must not be happening!!"

Funny how the people who claim to be UNABLE TO SEE how Clinton's campaign was racist (or at least pandered to white racist fears), are white.

And I really HATE it when people trot out all of Clinton's celebrity supporters of color to say, "See! See! How could HRC be racist? She has black supporters!" Fuck that. A few white supporters don't speak for every white person, why would you argue that a few black supporters speak for every black person?

It's just so privileged. As Tim Wise would say, "Your whiteness is showing." As I and many other people would say, "Your ass is showing!"

There is a "reasonable person" standard in the law, which is also applicable to life. If a reasonable person would not read those statements as racist, then they are (wait for this shocker) not racist. Ditto for sexism.

So, who gets to decide which person is being reasonable - the person who, based on their own life experiences, see something as racist or sexist, or the person who has never experienced racism or sexism in their entire life? Way to marginalize.

I have zero desire to read the machinations of someone's mind who has nothing more than a pre-determined goal: "prove" that the opponent is racist.

Then I have a better idea: Prove that no part of the campaign was racist. For far to long, People of Color have had to hold their oppressions up to some sort of measuring stick to prove how badly The System reeks of racism. Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, we are often told that "[reasonable people] would not read those statements as racist". Are we not reasonable people?

I'm sorry, but I don't look for racism, sexism, or the like around every corner, simply because I actually have a life and have real problems to worry about.

Fuck you.

I don't know about other Black people, but unfortunately, my skin color doen't wash off. But I guess I should be grateful that racism is such a trivial matter in today's society. So trivial in fact that anyone with "a life and have real problems to worry about" shouldn't be bothered, right?

Fuck you.

I also have no desire to diminish the real effects of racism...

You don't read what you write, do you?

There is a "reasonable person" standard in the law, which is also applicable to life. If a reasonable person would not read those statements as racist, then they are (wait for this shocker) not racist. Ditto for sexism.

So, who gets to decide which person is being reasonable - the person who, based on their own life experiences, see something as racist or sexist, or the person who has never experienced racism or sexism in their entire life? Way to marginalize.

I have zero desire to read the machinations of someone's mind who has nothing more than a pre-determined goal: "prove" that the opponent is racist.

Then I have a better idea: Prove that no part of the campaign was racist. For far to long, People of Color have had to hold their oppressions up to some sort of measuring stick to prove how badly The System reeks of racism. Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, we are often told that "[reasonable people] would not read those statements as racist". Are we not reasonable people?

I'm sorry, but I don't look for racism, sexism, or the like around every corner, simply because I actually have a life and have real problems to worry about.

Fuck you.

I don't know about other Black people, but unfortunately, my skin color doen't wash off. But I guess I should be grateful that racism is such a trivial matter in today's society. So trivial in fact that anyone with "a life and have real problems to worry about" shouldn't be bothered, right?

Fuck you.

I also have no desire to diminish the real effects of racism...

You don't read what you write, do you?

Also:

Enmeal FTW!!

I wouldn't normally say this, given the obvious invective of the post, but...

I'm sorry, but I don't look for racism, sexism, or the like around every corner, simply because I actually have a life and have real problems to worry about.

Fuck you.

Hear, hear. Sometimes there is no other response.

I'm sorry, but I don't look for racism, sexism, or the like around every corner, simply because I actually have a life and have real problems to worry about.

Fuck you.

Ditto. Yeah, Jesus Christ.

I supported Clinton through the primary, and now I'm throwing my support 100% behind Obama. I would have been equally happy with either one of them, though I understand why others would not.

I'm also really, really not appreciating these whispers throughout the feminist community from women claiming they're going to pocket their votes or vote for McCain because Hillary isn't the candidate (not saying this is coming from Feministing readers, but I am hearing it). You're an asshole - don't fuck the rest of the country because you're a sore loser. If you think people are calling you "racist" now, just wait until you, as a "feminist progressive" chuck your vote or throw your support behind McCain (McCain!) instead of voting for Obama. Are you serious?! Please, please, please don't make us look even dumber than we already do.

Oenophile, I didn't say there were no standards by which we can judge people ever. You talk about racism and sexism as though they are charges one would present as a trial, with judgments and accusers. I don't buy into that framework because THAT is not how the world works.

For the most part, sexism and racism have little to do with burning crosses, nutcracker dolls, or curious george tshirts. Usually, they involve structural inequality (e.g. terrible public schools), or they are more covert (e.g. Hillary is "catty"/Michele is "ungrateful"). When talking about sexism in this campaign, it is much easier to point to the nutcracker dolls as an example of sexism than it is to talk about how Hillary has had to walk a complicated line between being tough and approachable. Our understanding of what it means to be "tough" isn't just the literal definition of the word tough. It has to do with an interplay of social cues based on class (remember that flip flopping windsurfer John Kerry?), race (we can't trust Obama the manchurian candidate!), and gender (remember that sissy John Edwards and his fancy pants haircut?).

The problem with applying some sort of "reasonable person" standard here is that it tends to adhere to the dominant culture's view of the world. It's not objective, it's based on your standards, your culture, and your view of the world. By this standard, minority voices are often discounted, and dominant voices are reinforced as "objective" ones.

Furthermore, I'm not sure how this "reasonable person" standard allows you to prescribe motives to people. I'm not even going to address the nonsense about people looking for racism around every corner because they have no life, or your very offensive implication that I and others are simply being "hysterical." I see something similar when JessicaNOW declares that Hillary is not racist (i.e. not a bad person). I can't repeat this enough: When it comes to racism and sexism, motives and intent are mostly beside the point and it hijacks the discussion. I'm so tired of every discussion becoming about a person (this time Hillary) and their guilt. I will take a newfound awareness over an apology any day. Ugh, I have much, much more to say here, but lunch is almost over!

Here here, Malaika and Emneal!

Honestly, it never ceases to amaze me that posts like this inevitably dissolve into absurd
oppression olympics and extremely insensitive if not racist statements. This is a FEMINIST blog, excuse me if I hold people to higher standards. In addition to a Feminism 101 I think we need a basic Racial Inequality Awareness 101

jesus, people.

JessiaNOW,

That was not point of my post, sorry if it was unclear. The point was, as a feminist, you likely don't respond well when men tell you that despite your adamant belief that something is sexist, you are simply mistaken. You don't let men, from their position of privlege, step in and tell you that something is not sexist. It is condescending and marginalizing.

The point is, that is what you are doing to people of color, and you can't expect a response that is any less offended than you would be if a man told you "no, sorry, actaully nothing this campaign season has been sexist."

That is not to say that white people should just blindly say "yes that was racist" if they don't understand why something is percieved as racist. That doesn't lead to understanding. It means though, that someone should seek to understand why something is offensive rather than writing off the people who claim that it is. That is what is expected of men who claim to be pro-feminist, and it is what must be expected of white people who claim to be anti-racist.

AP,

According to national polls Clinton still enjoys high favorable ratings among African-Americans.** She also had prominent African-American supporters until she suspended her
campaign on Saturday. Clearly, there is no consensus among African-Americans as to how we should view Clinton-and if we were to take a majority vote, most African-Americans would still look favorably on her.

The fact that Clinton enjoys high favorable ratings is telling - she still has quite a bit to contribute to public life, and to Americans.

So, to recap:

Do I think Clinton made comments that offended people, and that she ought and did apologize for? Yes! Emphatically yes!

Do I think she should be labeled a racist who ran a racist campaign? No. She has still a lot more to give to public life. She ought to continue to build bridges for Obama and with African-Americans.

Now my natural response to your sentence "The point is, that is what you are doing to people of color, and you can't expect a response that is any less offended than you would be if a man told you "no, sorry, actaully [sic] nothing this campaign season has been sexist." is to simply point out you don't know a thing about me, and I'm not sure you have been reading all my comments. To imply that I am a racist or insensitive because I don't believe Clinton is a racist who ran a racist campaign is bordering on the absurd, and the label will automatically dismiss me from any further discussion.

To answer The Reckless Tongue, I did not overlook the link to racialicious.com deliberately. I simply didn't notice it. However, I'm not sure how the link is relevant. Do I think feminists need to address race? Absolutely!!! Were you honestly expecting me to say "no"? I would be a complete moron/asshole/self-absorbed jerk if I did!

But to conclude... Shouldn't we all be working our asses off for Obama instead of bickering with no avail here? Clinton's campaign is over. Let's get working for Obama!

**According to national polls, Clinton's favorable ratings among African-Americans was close to 60% in June, 2008

To answer The Reckless Tongue, I did not overlook the link to racialicious.com deliberately. I simply didn't notice it. However, I'm not sure how the link is relevant.

Did you ever read past the title?

Shouldn't we all be working our asses off for Obama instead of bickering with no avail here? Clinton's campaign is over.

I don't know ab out anyone else, but I can't just brush things under the table and pretend it never happened. Bottom line: I don't trust Hillary (or Bill) Clinton after this whole campaign. And I'm having a hard time feeling the love from the many white feminists who would still like to believe that there is nothing for us, as Women of Color to be concerned about as regards to the racism in her campaign.

Dear Hillary supporters,

If you want to have a civilized conversation about your thoughts on her candidacy without being attacked with hateful and vitriolic slurs, Jen has posted an excellent entry where (so far) every commenter has been polite and decent and respectful. Good luck to you all and I wouldn't waste any more time trying to have a fair or nuanced conversation on this thread, it clearly ain't gonna happen. Peace.

Malaika, what do you want to see happen?

JessicaNOW,

I want to put out there that I think we think about racism very differently and that our different paradigms may have caused you to interpret my comment in a much more offensive way than it was intended. I think that discinctions between "racist" and "non-racist" as applied to people are of very limited use; I think that all white people benefit from and are influenced by white priviledge. I don't think that you specifically have any particular animus towards people of color. In my mind, being a good ally in the fight to end racial opression means recognizing how white priviledge influences your perspective on what is racist, and priviledging the opinions of people who have experienced racism in discussing what is racially offensive.

I used that analogy because most people on this blog recognize that men should not write off women when we argue that something is sexist, even when they don't see it as such. I feel like that is instructive with regards to how white feminists should approach discussions of racism if we have any hope of mending some racial divisions in the feminist movement that this campaign season seems to have re-opened/widened.

My goal is certainly not to label you specifically as a racist, nor was it to silence you. If you think that my analogy is false or lacking, I would like to hear your comments.

JessicaNOW:

First I would like to see you, and other Clinton supporters at least acknowledge that the opinions of WOC towards the Clinton campaign - positive or negative - are valid without dismissing them outright. You (and many white feminists in general) wish for us to take point with you, but when we voice our own concerns and want somebody to take a stand with us, we're often dismissed. Example:

Clinton fired the campaign people who made offensive remarks. Cinton apologized directly for the remarks she made that offended people. And she apologized for what people who worked for campaign said...

It's the case that nothing Clinton can do will satisfy everyone. Clearly.

According to national polls Clinton still enjoys high favorable ratings among African-Americans.** She also had prominent African-American supporters until she suspended her campaign on Saturday. Clearly, there is no consensus among African-Americans as to how we should view Clinton-and if we were to take a majority vote, most African-Americans would still look favorably on her.

Does Ann Coulter speak for you since you share the same race? Of course not! So why should any other black woman speak for me?

It just amazes me that the same tactics men use to dismiss women are being used by white women to dismiss Women of Color.

Also, this is an excellent post by AP.

Jessica NOW:

One more thing, I do wholeheartedly agree with AP in saying that I honestly don't think you are a racist and that "I don't think that you specifically have any particular animus towards people of color."

Malaika, you missed the entire quote. The reason I made the case that Clinton still has high favorables among African-Americans is not to "prove" that Clinton isn't a racist, but rather to point out that she hasn't burned all her bridges - she can still be relevant to American political life, and contribute positively to those issues that matter to all of us.

And I really HATE it when people trot out all of Clinton's celebrity supporters of color to say, "See! See! How could HRC be racist? She has black supporters!" Fuck that. A few white supporters don't speak for every white person, why would you argue that a few black supporters speak for every black person?

Or that black supporters/detractors speak for all people of color.